[1] In a case where “waste” is supplied as a raw material for recycling, whether the nature of waste under the former Wastes Control Act is lost (negative)

[2] The elements for manufacturing finished products by processing “waste” are required to be used as a raw material for manufacturing finished products by losing the nature of waste and manufacturing finished products

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Wastes Control Act (Amended by Act No. 10389, Jul. 23, 2010) / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Wastes Control Act (Amended by Act No. 10389, Jul. 23, 2010)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do70 Decided June 1, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1559) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6081 Decided February 28, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 954) Supreme Court Decision 2009Du6681 Decided September 30, 201 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3116 Decided December 26, 2002

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Kim Hong-ro

Gwangju District Court Decision 2010No1983 Decided November 10, 2010

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 10389, Jul. 23, 2010) defines wastes as “waste, materials, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste egg, carcasses of animals, etc. that are not required for human life or business activities.” In light of the purport of the above Act, in order to strictly regulate the discharge of wastes that may have a significant impact on the natural environment and living environment, thereby promoting the preservation of environment and the improvement of the quality of people’s lives by strictly regulating the discharge of wastes that are feared to have a significant impact on the natural environment and living environment, the said substances shall be deemed as wastes under the above Act insofar as they are no longer necessary for the business activities of the relevant workplace, and does not lose the nature of the wastes that are disposed of at the relevant workplace as recyclable materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du6681, Sept. 30, 2010).

Meanwhile, even if a person who is supplied with the above materials processes a finished product by means of crushing, screening, mixing, mixing, and lodging, and then does not yet reach a finished product in light of the intention of the person who is supplied with the above materials, the nature of the material, and the nature of the material, if it reaches the extent that it is objectively approved by social norms as necessary for human life or business activities through the above processing process, the material should be deemed to have lost its characteristic as a waste and changed into a raw material for the production of finished products, and thus, it shall not be deemed to constitute waste, i.e., waste, which is discarded materials that are not necessary for business activities (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do3116, Dec. 26, 2002; 2008Do3108, Jun. 12, 2008, etc.).

After comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and found the Defendants guilty of the violation of the Wastes Control Act against the Defendants on the premise that the instant materials, which Defendant 1 practically operated, and Co-Defendant 2 and Co-Defendant 1, were in the process of manufacturing by-product fertilizer by mixing them with livestock excreta and fire saws, etc., and did not change them into the status of raw materials for manufacturing by-product fertilizer through the process of processing, on the basis that they were in the process of manufacturing by-product fertilizer.

In addition, under the premise that the liquid substance as seen above is mixed with rainwater and leaked out of each workplace constitutes waste insofar as it is difficult to use it for human life or business activities, Defendant 1 was guilty of violating the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act as to the Defendants, on the premise that Defendant 1 had intent to have the above waste leaked out of the above workplace and flow it into nearby public waters.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to wastes under the former Wastes Control Act, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to intentional violation of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)