beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of the defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The reasoning of the appeal by Defendant A and B is unreasonable since the sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment for Defendant A, and a fine of seven million won for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C and D’s grounds for appeal 1) misunderstanding the legal doctrine (Defendant C’s ground for appeal) (the point of the lower judgment’s unauthorized reclamation of industrial wastes) shall be subject to the application of Article 63 subparag. 1, Article 8 subparag. 1, Article 63 subparag. 2, and Article 63 subparag. 2 and Article 8 subparag. 2 of the Waste Management Act, and Article 63 subparag. 2 and Article 8 subparag. 2 of the same Act, not Article 65 subparag. 1 and Article 13(1) of the same Act, rather than Article 65 subparag. 1, Article 65(2) of the Waste Management Act, are applicable
2) Fact-misunderstanding (Defendant C’s illegal reclamation of industrial wastes) Defendants buried wastes through lawful procedures under the relevant laws and regulations, and Defendant C did not have participated in the act of reclamation, and there was no intention to violate the Waste Management Act.
3) The sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment to Defendant C, and a fine of seven million won to Defendant D) that is unfair in sentencing is excessively unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
Prosecutor at the trial on December 11, 2017, J. 407, J. 2016
3. A. Of the facts charged under paragraph (1) of this Article (the illegal reclamation of wastes), anyone filed an application for amendments to a bill of amendment with the purport that anyone shall not reclaim wastes in any place other than a place or facility prepared by the competent authority for the collection of wastes, except for those permitted, approved, or reported pursuant to the Waste Management Act, and this Court granted permission.
Accordingly, the facts charged in the instant case were modified as stated below in the criminal history column.
Since the subject of the adjudication was changed in the first instance, it was against Defendant A, C, and B.