logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.07.05 2013노602
폐기물관리법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 7(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act provides that “If two or more kinds of wastes are generated or discharged by mixing them at the time of the occurrence of wastes” is excluded in item (b) of the same Article, the Defendants are only waste disposal business operators, not the subject of reclamation. 2) Article 7(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act provides that the Defendants shall be separately collected, transported, and stored depending on the type, nature, and condition of wastes, combustible or combustibility, etc.

3) The determination of the lower court’s calculation of the 49,146 tons of combustible wastes buried in 164,038 tons is merely a simple presumption. 4) In the case of C Co., Ltd., the applicable provisions of joint penal provisions were already rendered by the Constitutional Court that rendered a decision of unconstitutionality, and thus, the portion of the application of the said provisions should be acquitted

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: 3 years of suspended sentence, probation, community service, and community service 160 hours in one year of imprisonment; 3 years of suspended sentence, 3 years of probation, community service, 120 hours in October, and 120 hours in prison, and Defendant C corporation: fine 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the assertion that reclamation is not the subject of reclamation

A. In full view of the macro-made evidence, the lower court determined that the Defendants transported wastes inside the reclaimed land without being exposed to the violation of the processing standards, and recognized the fact that the employees buried the wastes, and that it merely treated the wastes brought into the Republic of Korea as managers of the Reclaimed Site Management Corporation. Thus, the lower court ordered another person to reclaim wastes.

arrow