(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.04.05 2018노45 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.04.05 2018노45

폐기물관리법위반

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A and the above Defendants P (one year and two months of imprisonment; six months of imprisonment; two years of suspended execution; and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant G1) misunderstanding of the legal principle - The facts charged in the instant case are not specified in the time, place, and specific public invitation of the Defendant to commit the instant crime with co-defendant A, etc., and thus, the facts charged were specified.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) In fact, the Defendant was thought to have incinerated wastes by the joint Defendant A, and the Defendant was merely discharged from the place of business through the cancer roll truck engineer introduced by AL, and did not constitute a public contest with the said A regarding the unauthorized dumping of wastes.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court also asserted that Defendant G’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts was identical to the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail with the Defendant’s assertion and its determination under the title “determination on the Defendant G and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment (No. 15 through 18 pages). Examining the lower court’s determination in comparison with the record and closely examination, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable (in particular, in relation to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, joint Defendant A stated in the lower court that “it is impossible for the Defendant to gather the fact that the instant waste-generating company is speculative through an enterprise that did not obtain the permission, because the waste-generating cost is less than normal disposal cost,” and that in light of the fact that Defendant A stated in the lower court’s court’s determination that “The Defendant was aware and expressed to the effect that he was involved in the crime of

[Judgment of the court below] The defendant's assertion is reasonable.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2018.04.20 2017노999

-수원지방법원 2018.06.27 2018노401

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.10.30 2015고단1483

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.06.20 2017고단1296

-대구지방법원 2018.09.14 2018노2379