beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of acquittal shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
Reasons
1. In full view of the evidence and overall circumstances submitted by the prosecutor as to the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal, although the defendant could have lent the name of “D Co., Ltd.” to I who is an unauthorized waste collection business operator as stated in the facts charged, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on a different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a comprehensive waste recycling business entity who has obtained permission for comprehensive recycling of wastes from the representative of D Co., Ltd., and the waste disposal business entity is prohibited from allowing another person to use his/her name or trade name, or from lending his/her license to another
Nevertheless, the Defendant obtained a comprehensive waste recycling permit in the name of “D Co., Ltd.” in the two countries, and transferred two vehicles owned by H and F, etc. in the name of “D Co., Ltd.” from July 31, 2009 to January 18, 2013, and caused I to collect and transport food wastes from August 2009 to April 15, 2013.
Accordingly, the Defendant lent the name of “D Co., Ltd.” to I, who is an unauthorized waste collection business operator.
B. The judgment of the court below is not sufficient to recognize the facts charged because each statement of internal investigation and investigation report on the current status of employees of D Co., Ltd., who seem to correspond to the facts charged in this case, is merely a fact that I had worked as an employee of the defendant, or because of this, it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged because the defendant seems to have worked as an employee of I and I, and ② according to the witness J, I's legal statement in the court below and the statement of interrogation of suspect in G, the defendant is directly with each workplace under the name of D Co., Ltd.