Whether the “storage facilities within the permitted place of business” under Article 25(9)1 of the Wastes Control Act, which provides for the appropriate place of storage of wastes due to the matters to be observed by the waste disposal business entity, refers to the storage facilities within the permitted place of business of the waste disposal business entity (affirmative), and whether the permitted place of business is included in the “place of business” (negative)

Article 25 (9) 1 and Article 66 subparagraph 9 of the Wastes Control Act, Article 7 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act, Article 30-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act

Supreme Court Decision 2019Do1118 Decided May 14, 2020 (Gong2020Ha, 1134)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorneys Yang Byung-soo et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2020No924 decided May 29, 2020

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

According to the records, Defendant 1 appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing grounds for appeal. In such a case, the argument that there was an error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles in the part concerning the transboundary movement of wastes and the violation of the Act on their Disposal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Furthermore, even upon examining the facts, the judgment below which affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that convicted Defendant 1 of the facts charged that “it was a plan to export wastes that did not undergo lawful treatment process, such as separation, washing, and drying, in collusion with the Nonindicted Party in the Philippines, etc., and filed a false export declaration twice as if they were planned to export wastes to the Philippines,” did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or misconception of legal principles

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where the above defendant was sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for appeal.

2. Judgment on Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal

A. According to Article 25(9)1 of the Wastes Control Act, a waste treatment business entity shall keep wastes in an appropriate place, such as a storage facility or a temporary storage facility approved in a permitted place of business, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment. According to Article 7(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act, where a person who disposes of or recycles wastes stores wastes in the same place of business as a waste disposal facility or recycling facility, he/she shall keep such wastes in a storage facility. Article 30-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act only lists an appropriate place under Article 25(9)1 of the Wastes Control Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2019Do118, May 14, 202).

In addition to the structure and language of the relevant statutes, especially the fact that the statutes on waste management provide that the guidance and supervision of waste disposal business operators and the criminal punishment of waste disposal business operators, such as permission and inspection of waste disposal business, shall be systematically and systematically integrated, “storage facilities in the permitted place of business” under Article 25(9)1 of the Wastes Control Act refers to storage facilities in the permitted place of business of the waste disposal business operator, and the third party’s place of business is not included in the “place of business.”

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of violating the Wastes Control Act. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “reasonable storage place” under Article 25(9)1 of the Wastes Control Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Noh Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)