In a case where the Defendant, the representative director of the corporation A, was indicted for violating the former Wastes Control Act by reclaiming waste stone (waste stone) generated during the tin-raying process at a place other than waste disposal facilities, the case holding that the act of using stone not exceeding the elements of soil as stone storage materials or using it as stone filling materials in the place of business does not constitute “waste reclamation” under Article 63 of the same Act.

In a case where the defendant, the representative director of the Gap corporation, was prosecuted for violation of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 11914, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter "Waste Control Act"), on the ground that he buried waste rocks, which are wastes generated during the tin-ray process, at a place other than the waste disposal facilities, the case holding that since tin-stones or gravels which did not reach the stage of the occurrence, which did not reach the soil elements, do not constitute the "production" of certain substances as a premise for the application of the Wastes Control Act, and only those which were selected after completion of appropriate light operations when understanding the process of extracting and collecting minerals, can be deemed as having completed the "production", i.e., the "production," at the Eul corporation's place of business, and thus, do not constitute the "production" of wastes under Article 63 of the Wastes Control Act.

Articles 1, 2 subparag. 1, 8(2), and 63 of the former Wastes Control Act (Amended by Act No. 11914, Jul. 16, 2013); Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Profit-gu et al.

Attorney Choi Han-chul et al.

Cheongju District Court Decision 2014Ma474 decided January 22, 2015

The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published against the defendant.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant is a representative director of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 (hereinafter “instant company”).

No person shall reclaim wastes in any place other than the waste disposal facilities permitted, approved, or reported pursuant to the Wastes Control Act.

Nevertheless, from December 21, 2007 to January 18, 2013, the Defendant buried waste rocks, which are waste generated during the tin line process, in the factory of the instant company, on the land of Ycheon-si ( Address omitted), which is not waste disposal facilities permitted, approved, or reported pursuant to the Wastes Control Act.

B. The judgment of the court below and the scope of party members' adjudication

(1) Summary of the lower judgment (Partial guilty, partial innocence)

The lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the facts charged during a certain period of the above reclamation act (hereinafter “instant crime”) and not guilty on the facts charged during a certain period of prosecution, on the ground that there was a single comprehensive crime among the parties, and did not render a separate verdict of not guilty in the disposition. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the facts charged by the lower court, which the lower court found guilty, are as follows.

From December 21, 2007 to May 3, 2010, the Defendant buried waste stone, which is a waste generated during the tin line at the factory of the instant company, in the land of Ycheon-si ( Address omitted), which is not a waste disposal facility permitted, approved, or reported in accordance with the Wastes Control Act.

In short, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds that, as of May 4, 2010 when the prosecutor rendered a decision on “not guilty” as of May 4, 2010, the so-called crime under Article 63 of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 11914, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter “Waste Control Act”) was satisfied with the elements of the crime under Article 63 of the former Wastes Control Act, i.e., the act committed after satisfying the above elements of the crime under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, on the ground that there was a “legal mistake” under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, even if the act was performed after the above elements of the crime under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

(2) Scope of inquiry of the political party

On May 4, 2010, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the grounds of the judgment regarding the crime committed after May 4, 2010, which is part of the Defendant, which is a single comprehensive crime, and sentenced to a fine of 200,000 won by recognizing the remainder of the judgment guilty. The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed on both the Defendants and the Prosecutor, but the Prosecutor did not appeal the part of the guilty as the grounds for appeal, and there is no ground for appeal as to the

Therefore, the judgment of innocence in the original trial shall be deemed to have been exempted from the object of public defense among the parties, although the part of acquittal in the reasoning was transferred to the trial court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991; 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 201). The judgment of acquittal in the original trial shall be based on the conclusion of the judgment of the court below, and the scope of the trial of the original trial shall be limited to the part of the judgment of the court below's conviction against the defendant (the part of innocence in the judgment of the court below that makes the conclusion is different from the reasoning or logic composition of the party, but it is not decided again by the trial court).

2. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor;

In this case, the defendant and the prosecutor appealed to the effect that the guilty part of the judgment of the court below is not guilty, and the prosecutor's grounds for appeal (specificly, the following sub-paragraph (b)) are included in those documents presented by the defendant and the defense counsel. Thus, these grounds for appeal should be arranged together.

A. Points of mistake of facts

(1) Absence of reclamation act

Article 63 of the Wastes Control Act provides that “a person who has dumped or buried commercial wastes in violation of Article 8(1) or (2)” is subject to punishment. While the Defendant he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she stockpiled tin with part of tin in the land located in a mining area owned by the company in the instant case, it does not constitute a fact that he/she buried waste stone, which is a waste, as shown in the facts charged in the instant case, and thus,

(2) Wastes in terms of the nature and state of waste rocks or waste rocks;

(A) As above, even if the stone (raw stone) containing some of the tin stones gravels in the course of restoring a forest by stockpiling a stone axis or used for a stone shed is left over without being taken out due to the lack of commercial nature (sale) among the tin stoness taken out in the process of tin extraction, they do not constitute wastes as defined in the Wastes Control Act.

This is because it is because it is only a kind of stone generated after crushinging tin's physical force into tin's tin's tin's tin's tin's tin's tin's tin's tin's tin's remaining tin's tin's tin's remaining tin's tin'

(B) In the instant case, it is not clear that the above low-priced stone member's seat, which became a problem that the Defendant buried in the instant case, is useful for human life in various aspects, such as using it for landscaping or stone construction in its natural condition, and it causes or is harmful to environmental pollution. It is against the legislative purpose of the Wastes Control Act, and thus it is against the legislative purpose of the Wastes Control Act to interpret it as constituting waste even with respect to stone as a kind of stone in such natural surroundings.

In this regard, the lower court determined that “The Wastes Control Act is a kind of waste under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Wastes Control Act, on the ground of the logic that “The Act is a designated waste that may pollute the surrounding environment or cause harm to the human body among the industrial wastes,” and that the remainder shall not be considered as a waste on the ground that it was not contaminated or harmful to the general waste.” However, in such a case, the application of the Wastes Control Act should be denied in light of the purpose of the Wastes Control Act and the supplementary nature of the Criminal Act.

(3) Waste non-defluence in terms of the remaining usage of clutin or waste stone in the future

The Wastes Control Act defines only the "materials which have not become unnecessary for business activities" as wastes. In this case, tin members in question were used as materials for the recovery of a lot of mining business sites, and such measures for the recovery of a lot of materials are one of the statutory obligations to be performed by the instant company as a matter of course. The above tin members are substances necessary for business activities and do not constitute wastes under the above provision.

B. Legal principles

If not only the competent authority in charge of reporting or permission related to waste treatment, but also the prosecutor's office and the court's office that are legal experts, determined that the instant waste stone is not a waste, it is reasonable to conclude that the Defendant, not a legal expert, is difficult to expect that the instant waste stone is a waste under the Wastes Control Act. In other words, the lower court's judgment falls under the case where the Defendant believed that the waste stone does not constitute a waste and there was a justifiable reason for such misunderstanding, and thus, falls under the case where there is a justifiable reason for such misunderstanding.

3. Judgment of the court below

The purpose of the Wastes Control Act is to contribute to the preservation of the environment and the improvement of the quality of people's lives by controlling the generation of wastes to the maximum extent possible and disposing of generated wastes in an environment-friendly manner (Article 1, the purpose of this Act). Meanwhile, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act defines "waste, burning materials, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste eggs, dead bodies of animals, etc. which have become unnecessary for human life or business activities as "waste" under the application of the Act, and defines "waste that should be treated in an environment-friendly manner."

In this context, the provisions of garbage, burning materials, etc. should be considered not as a matter to be limited as a matter of course, but as a matter of course, it should be distinguished by focusing on whether the waste corresponding to the substance concerned is a substance (subject matter) which is indispensable for human life or business activities, and if it is a substance that is not necessary for human life, it is the best to restrain the generation itself as much as possible, and if it is a substance that is inevitably caused, it is necessary for us to treat or dispose of it, it is the existence of the above laws in order to preserve the environment by preserving the environment in an environment and ultimately improve the quality of people's lives.

In interpreting the provisions of this Act, the meaning of “treatment” or “generating” is premised on the former stage of the act. In other words, the materials or wastes to be treated environmentally friendly as much as possible must be produced by us or obtained by by-products in the process of such production, and such production cannot be achieved from free (free) and should only be made from natural substances and processed water/chemically, so this is the premise of a source-based self-production. These materials can be collected from an externally clear case, such as mining of minerals, etc., or capturing animals on land/land/water, and there may be cases where it is unclear externally, such as cultivation of plants and crops using the foregoing principles. If so, it should be understood as part of the act of collecting substances (subject matter) and if it is not necessary for human or business activities, it should be avoided at the basic stage of the occurrence or treatment of substances.

In light of such legislative purport and regulatory structure of the Wastes Control Act, the judgment of the court below holding that “ insofar as such substance as seen above discharged from a workplace has become unnecessary for the business activities of the workplace concerned, such substance shall be deemed to constitute wastes under the Wastes Control Act, and it shall not lose the nature as a waste on the ground that the substance discarded from the workplace concerned is supplied as recycled materials,” it shall be more strict regulation by stipulating harmful substances that may pollute the surrounding environment or cause harm to human body among the industrial wastes as designated wastes, and the rest shall not be deemed to constitute wastes only on the ground that it is not contaminated or harmful only on the ground that it is defined as general wastes.” Accordingly, we cannot accept the defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion to the effect that the substance produced only through physical manipulation that extracts the stone extracted from the substance in question is not a waste under the Act, nor does it cause any environmental pollution or is not a harmful substance.”

However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s conclusion regarding the process of specifically applying the above-mentioned premise legal interpretation and the relevant provision in the instant case.

In other words, the court below determined that the waste stone at issue reaches the conclusion that "this is a substance no longer necessary for the business activities of the defendant's workplace, and the waste stone at issue reaches the conclusion that "the waste stone at issue constitutes a waste under the Wastes Control Act." Here, it is clear that "the waste stone at issue" or "the waste at issue" in the facts charged in this case refers to waste generated during the tin ore dressing process. If this is further mentioned above, the court below determined that the waste is a waste subject to the Wastes Control Act since it is not a substance that causes or is inevitably shipped out in the course of the tin or tin, other than a tin, which is inevitably shipped out in the course of the tin or tin excavating process, by extracting tin buried under the ground and selling it for natural use, artificial use, farmland improvement, or steel removal, etc., and then such tin is not a substance that is not a substance that causes or harmful to its environmental pollution, but is necessary for human life or business activities.

Such determination by the court below is not clear in the judgment of the court below, but it is reasonable to view that the above production or generation has been completed merely by simply simply moving the stone buried underground into the ground, so long as it was carried out on the ground by dividing it from the tin ores existing underground into the ground (if it is unclear in the judgment of the court below, it is reasonable to view that the above act does not give a special meaning to the act of mining or extraction itself, and it does not give a special meaning to the above act of mining or extraction itself). However, it is difficult to view that the mining (mining) itself itself is itself a pre-feasible and pre-fassive of the natural mineral extraction, extraction, extraction, loss, and quality improvement activities in the form of the body, liquid, or material buried underground, but it does not include the above concept of "explosion or extraction of stone existing in the process of mining or collecting stone existing in the ground," but it does not include the above concept of "explosion or extraction of stone existing in the process of mining or collecting stone."

If it is difficult to propose a punishment or criticism to treat wastes in conflict with the Wastes Control Act on the ground that a rocks separated from the blasting work from the deep rock layers below the ground level were removed from the blasting, only some of them were commercialized, and the remainder was left unattended, and later neglected it. It is difficult to interpret it as an unfair treatment of wastes in conflict with the Wastes Control Act or to impose a punishment. Unlike this issue, it is no different in the case where the separated rocks are shipped out to the ground, and again they are transported into the pits, transported into the pits, used in the stone storage work for pits construction, restoration work, or used as materials for the recovery of the site outside the pits. This is because it is merely because it is not permissible to regard it as “the removal of the location of the earth and sand containing the mineral in question,” and it is reasonable to regard it as “the disposal of wastes after the generation of wastes” as “the disposal of wastes only within the scope prescribed by the Wastes Control Act.”

The blasting work shall be conducted on the reticulate and underground and shall be carried out from the stones of various kinds (goods, etc.) to the ground, and the stone of low-water class to the low-water class and high-water class. Here, it shall not be evaluated as “natural materials that have not been mined or mined” like earth and sand, not tin, and shall not be evaluated as “materials which have become unnecessary for people’s livelihood or business activities even if they have occurred,” after completing light work separating and screening heavy-water and high-water class and high-water class.

The meaning of “generating” under the Wastes Control Act can be easily seen by presenting the opposing cases as above. In other words, even in the case where extraction of heavy stone or high-water stone has its original commercial nature, and where the goods are extracted and then shipped out at any time through mining operations, the relevant place of business was closed or the relevant business was abandoned. If it is not appropriate to make them commercialized by moving them to another place of business within a normative meaning, due to the sudden change such as the collection and transportation cost (this refers to the kind of transport action cost) etc., if it is not appropriate to move them to a different place of business, the relevant high-water level of waste can no longer be treated as goods, and it should only be treated as “waste to be treated”. Accordingly, it should be treated or recycled in an environmentally friendly manner in accordance with the procedures as stipulated under the Wastes Control Act, etc.

As such, there should be a process of “production” of certain material as a premise for the application of the Wastes Control Act. In understanding the process of extracting and collecting minerals, it can be deemed that only tin and tin and tin and tin and tin and tin and tin and tin and tin and tin and tin and tin, which have yet to reach the stage of such an occurrence, have yet to go beyond the stage of soil elements. Thus, if tin and tin and tin and tin and tin and tin were separated for sale and use for the same purpose as tin and tin and tin were completely produced or generated for the same purpose, and if this is not necessary for human life or business activities, they should be treated in accordance with the Wastes Control Act. Accordingly, it is natural to view that tin and tin and tin and tin and tin and tin, which have yet to reach the stage of such occurrence as tin and tin and tin and tin and were still in the stage of soil elements for sale and use as aggregate for construction purposes.

[In addition, the court below did not further decide on the following grounds: (a) it is only part of the soil and stones in the process of extraction and extraction of tin stoness or tin stoness in this case; (b) it is not the substance produced by mining of the company in this case or the substance generated in the process thereof; (c) it is still necessary for business activities since it is used later as recovery materials; and (d) it is believed that the tin stone in this case does not constitute a waste because it does not constitute a waste; and (e) it constitutes a case where it is impossible to punish it because it falls under the case where justifiable grounds exist.]

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the following is

【Discretionary Judgment】

The summary of the facts charged in this case against the defendant is as shown in Paragraph 1-b. (1) above, and as seen in Paragraph 3 above, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so

Judges Shin Chang-mo (Presiding Judge)