Whether a crime of violation of Article 56 subparagraph 3 of the Water Quality Conservation Act is established if the report on abnormal operation under the Water Quality Conservation Act was made but it was possible to normally operate the discharge facilities and the preventive facilities for water pollutants (affirmative)

Even if the report on abnormal operation of the existing facilities is made for the improvement or alteration of the discharge facilities and prevention facilities for water pollutants, or for the malfunction or repair thereof, but it is possible to operate the existing facilities normally without the necessity to stop the operation thereof, and if it is violated, it is subject to the penal provisions of Article 56 subparagraph 3 of the Water Quality Conservation Act.

Articles 15 and 56 subparag. 3 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yoon-su et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No3200 delivered on August 19, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

According to the provisions of Article 15(1) and (4) of the Water Quality Conservation Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when operating operations, a business operator shall operate normally the emission and preventive facilities so that pollutants discharged from emission facilities meet the permissible emission standards under the provisions of Article 8 or 13(3). However, in a case where normal operation cannot be complied with due to inevitable reasons such as improvement, alteration, breakdown, repair, etc. of the emission and preventive facilities, a business operator shall make a report of abnormal operation. Thus, even if he made a report of abnormal operation for improvement, alteration, or repair of the emission and preventive facilities, if the operation of the existing facilities is not required but is operated normally, it shall be subject to the penal provisions of Article 56(3) of the same Act.

According to the records and the defendant's second instance court statement maintained by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant reported abnormal operation and the newly installed wastewater prevention facilities are biological treatment preventive facilities installed in a location different from the prevention facilities by the existing chemical treatment, and have been operated normally without the need to stop operation of the existing facilities. However, at the time of the first instance trial, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant discharged wastewater exceeding the emission standard level as stated in its reasoning because it was not operated intentionally due to the failure to operate medicine reaction, etc. among the existing facilities. Therefore, the court below's measures to which the above penal provisions apply to the defendant are applied are just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

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