The case holding that even if wastewater generated in the course of operation of a food waste treatment company flows into the final sewage treatment plant through a tea house connected to the final sewage treatment plant, the degree of contamination of the wastewater is far more than the permissible standards for the final sewage treatment plant to flow into the final sewage treatment plant, so it cannot be deemed that the pollutants flow into the preventive facilities under Article 15 (1) 1 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act.

The case holding that even if wastewater generated in the course of operation of a food waste treatment company flows into the final sewage treatment plant through the tea house connected to the final sewage treatment plant, the degree of contamination of the wastewater is far more than the permissible standards for the final sewage treatment plant to flow into the final sewage treatment plant, so the pollutants cannot be deemed to flow into the preventive facilities as prescribed in Article 15 (1) 1 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 6913 of May 29, 2003).

Articles 15(1)1, 27, 56-2 subparag. 4 and 61 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 6913 of May 29, 2003 and by Act No. 6451 of March 28, 2001), Article 2 of the Sewerage Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Park Jae-young

Attorney Choi Tae-tae et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2005Ra1182, 2005Ma739 decided June 28, 2005

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part on Defendant 3 is reversed.

Defendant 3 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When Defendant 3 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

The twenty-one day of detention days before a judgment of the first instance is rendered shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse concerning the above fine against Defendant 3.

Each appeal by Defendant 1, 2, and 4 corporation is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the violation of the Water Quality Conservation Act (Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 4 corporation)

(1) Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). Defendant 2 is the vice president of Defendant Co., Ltd., and Defendant Co., Ltd. has processed and treated food waste generated in the old Yangju-gun (hereinafter “the current Yangju-si”) as animal feed. The public officials belonging to Yangju-si have discharged wastewater generated in the operation process into the sewage culvert using the tank lorri. The above Defendants did not in collusion with Defendant 3 who are public officials belonging to Yangju-si, and did not let the above Defendants discharge the sewage culvert using the tank lorri in collusion with Defendant Co., Ltd., and Defendant Co., Ltd., the above Defendants treated wastewater for 3 years and 6 months, so there was no intention to violate the Water Quality Conservation Act as to the violation of the Water Quality Conservation Act.

(2) The wastewater generated by the Defendant Company is not discharged into the sewage culvert, which is a public waters, but discharged into the tea culvert connected to the same walan sewage terminal, and the sewage terminal treatment plant is under the Water Quality Conservation Act, and the above Defendants do not discharge the pollutants without discharging them into the preventive facilities.

(3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the violation of the Water Quality Conservation Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the offering of a bribe (Defendant 2)

Defendant 2 was found guilty of the facts charged, but the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, although Defendant 2 did not merely see one clock with respect to his duties to Kim Won-won, not with regard to his duties.

C. Unreasonable sentencing (defendants)

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination as to the violation of the Water Quality Conservation Act (Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant Company)

(1) As to the assertion that Defendant 1 and 2 did not directly flow wastewater into the sewage culvert, and that there was no intention to do so

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the court below through legitimate examination of evidence, namely, the defendant corporation obtained an intermediate waste treatment business permit from both cities on January 12, 199. The premise that the conditions of permission should not be discharged (see the 35 pages of investigation records). The defendant corporation entered into a contract for entrustment of food waste treatment generated at both cities on April 18, 200 and processed and treated food waste as animal feed. While the above contract for collection and transportation of food waste were responsible for both weeks, it is recognized that the defendant corporation should be responsible for all of its wastewater treatment charges and wastewater treatment charges generated in entrusting the treatment of food waste. The defendant corporation's wastewater treatment charges generated in the above operation are also presumed to have been owed to the defendant corporation for all of its own wastewater treatment charges (see the 945 pages of investigation records). The defendant corporation did not request the treatment of wastewater from the defendant corporation on the grounds that the above defendants corporation did not discharge food and waste from both weeks to the defendant corporation at the time of their own disposal of waste water from the defendant corporation to the two weeks.

(2) As to the assertion that wastewater flows into the final treatment plant of the above final treatment plant, not through the sewage culvert, which is a preventive facility under the Water Quality Conservation Act, through the tea pipe connected to the same walan sewage treatment plant of the same walan and Yangju.

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that wastewater generated by the defendant corporation was discharged into the tea house connected to the same walan and Yangyang Sewage terminal for the same period as the stated in the facts charged of this case and was discharged into the sewage terminal for the same period.

According to the provisions of Article 27 (1) of the Act and Article 35 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the above sewage terminal treatment plant is the wastewater terminal treatment plant whose joint treatment area covers Dongbcheon-si and Yangju-si pursuant to the provisions of Article 26 (2) of the former Water Quality Conservation Act. According to the provisions of Article 27 (1) of the Act and Article 35 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the defendant corporation is a person who intends to discharge wastewater in excess of the standards for effluent water quality in the above joint treatment area and discharges wastewater into the above wastewater terminal treatment plant. According to Article 27 (2) of the Act, the wastewater discharged from the above joint treatment area is deemed to have been installed preventive facilities as prescribed in Article 11 (1) of the Act for wastewater treatment.

Therefore, according to the records of this case, it is necessary to examine whether the sewage treatment terminal is a wastewater treatment facility under the Water Quality Conservation Act. The sewage treatment terminal is a terminal treatment facility under Article 2 of the Sewerage Act as it is. In other words, "sewage", "final treatment facility for discharging sewage, rainwater, and underground water discharged from the site of buildings and other facilities to the public sewerage". On the other hand, wastewater treatment terminal treatment facilities are prescribed in Article 27 of the Water Quality Conservation Act and are "facilities installed and operated to maintain environmental standards because the State and local governments have deteriorated water quality or to discharge pollutants from each place of business in an area where it is deemed necessary for the preservation of water quality: The above sewage treatment terminal is treated mainly, sewage treatment terminal is connected to the above terminal treatment facility as it is, and if the above sewage treatment terminal is partially permitted to discharge wastewater from the above terminal treatment facility as it is, the above sewage treatment terminal is not allowed to discharge wastewater into the above terminal, the above sewage treatment terminal is not allowed to discharge wastewater into the above 9mp to the above 6mp to the above 9mp to the above 9mp to the above wastewater or the above facility.

B. Judgment on the offering of a bribe (Defendant 2)

According to the evidence adopted by the court below through legitimate examination of evidence, in particular to the investigation agency of Kim Won-won, Kim Won-won's statement, the defendant 2's assertion that the above visibility is just a courtesy gift, is without merit, since it is acknowledged that the defendant 2, a public official of both cities, who works for the vice president, transported food waste water to be treated by the defendant corporation working for the vice president, and illegally discharged sewage culvert to the sewage culvert, etc., and in light of this, the view of the gallon theory of this case provided by the defendant 2 is related to the duties of Kimwon-won, and therefore, it is without merit.

C. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

(1) Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant Company

In light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the motive, consequence, and circumstance after the crime of this case, the defendants are consistent with the criminal investigation agency to the point of view that the defendants denied the crime and denied the crime, and the period of discharging pollutants is relatively long; the defendants did not directly treat wastewater that should be discharged through the prevention facilities and directly treat them; the defendants presumed to have considerable profits from discharging the wastewater without permission; in the case of the defendants 2, the nature of the crime is not good by offering the relevant public officials a bribe; and in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the motive, consequence, and the circumstance after the crime of this case, the court below sentenced the defendants 1 and 2 to the defendant 1 and 2 to the suspension of execution, and the fine of 10 million won sentenced to the defendant corporation is reasonable. Therefore, this part of the defendants

(2) Defendant 3

According to the overall circumstances shown in the records and arguments of this case, the defendant was detained for 21 days, and the defendant committed a mistake against his depth while making a confession of the facts charged, the defendant faithfully worked as a public official for 30 years without any criminal punishment or disciplinary measure, and the defendant was working in both cities from April 18, 200 to July 9, 201, while working in both cities for 30 years from around July 18, 2000, the defendant was forced to assist the defendant corporation in treating the water of this case by providing the water of this case with the tank lorry inevitably because it is difficult for the defendant corporation which entered into an entrustment contract for the disposal of food waste, etc., while serving in both cities from around July 18, 200 to around July 9, 201, the contract for the disposal of the water of this case is difficult to treat the water of this case. Thus, there is no benefit to the defendant to take into account the crime of this case, and it is recognized that the defendant participated only in part of the facts charged of this case's violation of the Water Quality Conservation Act.

3. Conclusion

Then, there is no ground for appeal by Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 2. Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Each of the facts constituting the crime of Article 1-2(b) through (3) of the first instance judgment shall be revised as “from July 9, 201 to July 5, 201,” and Article 2-4(2)2 of the second instance judgment shall be revised as “from July 10, 201 to July 5, 2001,” and Article 5-1 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act shall be amended as “from July 10, 201 to 6.3, Article 10 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act, Article 56-2 subparag. 4, Article 15(1)1 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act, Article 30 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act shall be amended as “from 60.10 to 645, Sept. 10, 201,” and Article 19-25(3) of the former Water Quality Conservation Act shall be enforced.

The summary of the facts charged and evidence against Defendant 3 recognized by this court is identical to each of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is decided to cite them as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 56-2 subparag. 4 and 15(1)1 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 6451, Mar. 28, 2001 and enforced before September 29, 200) Articles 56-2 subparag. 4 and 15(1)1 of the same Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in cases of non-entry of pollutants preventive facilities), Article 123 of the Criminal Act (in cases of abuse

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine (the reasons for this determination in front)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (to the extent that the penalty is aggregated with the maximum amount of both crimes)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. The inclusion of the number of days pending trial before sentencing

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Judges, et al. (Presiding Judge)