대기환경보전법위반
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. According to the statements by public officials related to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the public official, although it can be deemed that the purpose and area of the instant facilities constituted a mixture facility producing air pollutants.
2. Determination
A. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial shall be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in light of the fact that the Criminal Appeal Trial has the character as a post-trial even after deceiving the lower court, and the spirit of substantial direct examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., in a case where the first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as examination of witness, etc., the first instance court may raise probability or doubt as to the facts that
Even if it does not reach the degree of sufficiently resolving the reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone makes it difficult to prove the crime in the first instance judgment that there was an error of mistake of facts, and thus, cannot be found guilty of the charge (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016).
Although there is a doubt as to whether a fratous fertilizer can be produced without any reflect facility using power, it appears that the court below confirmed in the process of on-site inspection, and the court below determined that the volume of the facility in this case was 11,520 cubic meters = 72m.