[1] The case holding that the swine bamboo generated in the course of slaughter of pigs does not constitute wastes under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act

[2] The timing of commencement of a violation of Article 61 subparagraph 8 of the former Wastes Control Act and Article 24 (2) of the former Wastes Control Act

[3] The case concerning the method of handling the subsequent case where two prosecutions are filed for the same charged facts

[1] The case holding that, in case where the livestock cooperative entered into a by-products sales contract with the livestock cooperative on a one-year basis, deposited security money with the cooperative, and processed them by means of removing oil from the swine leaves, salting, disposing of them, etc., and then supplied them as raw materials to the bamboo plant, such goods shall not be deemed to constitute a discarded substance that would not be necessary for business activities in light of the intent of the cooperative and the nature, etc. of the goods in light of the above, since the swine bamboo is commercially sold at the cooperative's joint market

[2] Article 24 (2) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 5865 of Feb. 8, 1999) provides that an industrial waste discharger as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment shall report the kind, quantity, etc. of industrial wastes to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment. Article 61 subparagraph 8 of the former Wastes Control Act provides that a person who fails to report under Article 24 (2) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won, and Article 10 (1) 3 and (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 82 of Aug. 9, 199) provides that a person who discharges not less than 300 g of wastes average per day shall report to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu within one month from the date of commencing the business or the date of discharging wastes to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu who has jurisdiction over the place of industrial wastes.

[3] The case holding that the court handling the subsequent case should decide whether to enter into the substantive judgment of the subsequent case after considering how the result of the prosecuted case was first followed in case where double indictments was filed against the same breach of duty of report

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Wastes Control Act / [2] Articles 24(2) and 61 subparag. 8 (see current Article 61 subparag. 2) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 5865 of Feb. 8, 199), Article 10(1)3 and (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Ordinance of Ministry of Environment No. 82 of Aug. 9, 199) / [3] Article 327 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 2000No1536 delivered on July 10, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the operation of an unauthorized waste disposal business

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the defendant of the facts charged that the defendant engaged in the waste disposal business by in collusion with the non-indicteds on the ground that the swine bamboo generated in the course of slaughter of pigs at the Co-Defendant 1 cooperative of the court below (hereinafter referred to as the "Co-Defendant 1 cooperative") Kimhae's joint wholesale market corresponds to the wastes provided for in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act.

However, in light of the records, the defendant and the non-indicted of this case entered into a by-products sales contract with the above union on a one-year basis, and continued to be supplied to the above union with a deposit amount of KRW 250 million by setting a unit price for the weight of the swine paper, and processed them by means of removal of oil from the swine paper and disposal of salt paper, etc., and then supplied them as raw materials to the leather factory. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, since the swine paper of this case is commercially sold at the above cooperative's joint market, it cannot be deemed that the above union's intent and its article's nature are not necessary for business activities.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this case on the premise that the pigs of this case constitutes wastes shall not be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of wastes under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

2. As to the report that was not filed by an industrial waste discharger

Article 24 (2) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 5865 of Feb. 8, 1999 and enforced from August 8 of the same year) provides that any industrial waste discharger as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment shall report the kind, quantity, etc. of industrial wastes to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu under conditions prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment. Article 61 (8) of the former Wastes Control Act provides that any person who fails to report under Article 24 (2) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won, and Article 10 (1) 3 and (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 82 of Aug. 9, 199) provides that any person who discharges not less than 300 km of wastes average per day from the date of commencing the business or discharge of wastes, and thus, any person who fails to report any wastes that began within one month from the date of commencing the business.

Meanwhile, according to the records, separately from this case, the defendant was indicted as charged that "it was not reported while discharging animal residues and wastes (batch oil, etc.) at the workplace of a company from January 4, 1999 to March 10, 199 on an average of 1,500 km daily from the workplace of a company from January 4, 1999 to the Ulsan District Court Decision 9Da17379 decided on July 31, 199 that "the defendant conspired with the non-indicted 9Da1739 decided on July 1, 199 to the end of May 199, the court below should have determined on the charge of violating the obligation to file a prosecution against the non-indicted 1,500 g, the general waste producer at the workplace of the company from September 1997 to the end of May 199. Thus, the court below did not prosecute each of the above facts charged."

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the above facts charged without examining the result of the case charged first is erroneous by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)