폐기물관리법위반등
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Summary of the facts charged in this case
A. On December 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 12:30, at the construction site construction site for rest area located in Chungcheongnam-gun B, Chungcheongnam-do; (b) during the dispute with the victim C (41 years old); (c) during the process of construction; (d) the victim’s flab, the victim’s flab, and flab, the victim’s flab, and flab, etc. at one time, the victim’s right flab with the left flab; and (e) the victim’s flab, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment.
B. The Defendant violated the Waste Management Act, as the owner of the Chungcheongnam-gun B, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and from July 2016, the site creation work was conducted to build a resting lawsuit on the said land.
Although the Defendant was prohibited from reclaiming or burning wastes at any place other than waste disposal facilities permitted, approved, or reported pursuant to the Waste Management Act, the Defendant instructed D articles on the construction site for the rest area owned by the Defendant at the rest area owned by the said Defendant to reclaim waste in the said site, such as waste concrete, etc. (a volume of approximately 15 tons truck) generated while performing construction works for reinforced soil block, on October 1, 2016.
Accordingly, the Defendant buried industrial wastes.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant and the defense counsel in the injury committed the crime of injury to the purport that, although the Defendant had frightened the victim at the time from the investigative agency to this court, it was denied to the effect that there was no fact that the Defendant was frightening the victim’s frighten, or inflicted the injury on the left part of the charge.
The term “injury” in Article 257 of the Criminal Act refers to the injury of the victim’s physical integrity or the impairment of physiological functions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do3732, Jan. 26, 1999; 99Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000). Annoyingly, to the extent that the injury cannot be evaluated as “injury” in Article 257 of the Criminal Act is an upper part, and thus, it is no need for treatment, thereby infringing health conditions.
. cannot be seen.