logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.10.16 2013노1680
폐기물관리법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts by Defendants around April 2010 to May 5, 2010, the head of the instant case’s horsebox, which was imported by the Defendants, shall be deemed as practically constituting fertilizers in conformity with the fertilizer legal standards, it is erroneous in the lower court that recognized the facts charged and convicted the Defendants of the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s respective punishment (two million won per fine) imposed on the Defendants is too unlimited and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Wastes Control Act defines wastes as “waste, materials, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste egg, dead bodies of animals, etc. which are not required for human life or business activities.” In light of the purport of the Wastes Control Act to strictly regulate the discharge of wastes that are likely to have a significant impact on the natural and living environment, thereby promoting environmental preservation and improvement in the quality of people’s lives, insofar as such substances as mentioned above discharged from a workplace become unnecessary for business activities at the workplace concerned, such substances shall be deemed as wastes under the Wastes Control Act, and shall not lose the nature as wastes on the sole ground that the wastes discarded from the workplace are supplied as recyclable materials.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do70 Decided June 1, 2001 and 2002Do6081 Decided February 28, 2003, etc.). Comprehensively considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the instant case, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B Co., Ltd.”) received a certificate of registration of fertilizer production business under Article 11 of the Fertilizer Control Act, and Defendant A is a plant used as a fertilizer in the said company for about 10 years prior to the aforementioned company.

arrow