(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.3.14. 선고 2017고정312 판결

Where a defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Reasons

Criminal facts

Defendant A is an in-house director of Company B located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City following North Korea, and Defendant A is a corporation established to conduct interim recycling of wastes.

1. Defendant A

Any commercial waste discharger shall dispose of wastes generated from his/her place of business directly, or entrusted to a person who has obtained permission for waste treatment business, a person who has reported waste treatment, or a person who has installed

On November 21, 2011, the Defendant brought in the chemical shop marries, which were discharged from the company, F, G, H, I, and J, etc., in the company, F, H, I, I, and J, and made an interim recycling process by crushing and crushing, and then produced the products, and discharged the remaining waste marries to the (reficial) dynamic environment.

However, it is not possible to treat the waste gas discharged through the above process as the waste gas station is a mixture of waste gas stations, so it is not possible to treat only the waste gas station. However, the Defendant, a waste collection company, through a waste collection and transportation company, shall transport 25,800 ggs of waste gas stations which are mixed with the chemical concentration in the (e.g., reg., reg., reg., reg., wing-si, Cheongsan-si, 53-3, which is located in the (e.g., reg., wing-si), a waste collection and transportation company, by reclaiming it to the (e., reg., reg.,

From that time until September 10, 2015, the Defendant treated approximately KRW 6,520,850 g in total over 290 times in the same manner as indicated in the attached list of crimes, and disposed of it in the marine environment without obtaining permission to dispose of the chemical substance mixture.

2. Defendant B

The defendant has caused A to commit an act in violation of paragraph (1) at the date, time, and place mentioned in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Investigation report (State) (Report on the progress of collecting samples of wastes);

1. A license, etc. for a comprehensive waste recycling business (waste license - 175 pages of investigation records), each waste recycling contract, each business site waste disposal contract, and each business site waste disposal contract;

Application of Statutes

1. Article C applicable to the facts constituting the crime and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 65 Subparag. 2 and Article 18(1) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 13411, Jul. 20, 2015; and enforced July 21, 2016);

(b) Defendant B: the main sentence of Article 67, Article 65 Subparag. 2, and Article 18(1) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 13411, Jul. 20, 2015; Act No. 13411, Jul. 21, 2016);

2. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

3. Order of provisional payment; and

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment C on the Defendants and defense counsel’s argument

1. Summary of the assertion

Article 2-2 of the Wastes Control Act provides for detailed classification of the types of wastes and the types of recycling to be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment on July 20, 2015. The provisions were newly established on July 20, 2015, which began to be classified into chemical concentration in attached Table 4 under Article 4-2 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (Types of Wastes and Recycling Types of Wastes) newly established on July 21, 2016, and there was no such classification in the transfer regulations.

Since the provisions of the former Wastes Control Act are unclear, the Defendants could not be aware that the waste main engineer discharged from the place of business could not be recycled because the waste main engineer was the waste main engineer rather than the point of view. If punishment is imposed on July 21, 2016 due to the fact that the waste main engineer was treated by the recycling company, it would be contrary to the principle of prohibition of retroactive effect.

In addition, the waste gas company that the defendants discharged into the piracy environment is a substance that loses waste by removing the harmful substances of the waste gas company from the chemical shop, so it is difficult to view it as a chemical shop.

2. Relevant statutes;

구 폐기물관리법(2010. 7. 23. 법률 제10389호로 개정되어 2011. 7. 24. 시행된 것) 1)제2조(정의)이 법에서 사용하는 용어의 뜻은 다음과 같다.5의 2. “처리"란 폐기물의 수집, 운반, 보관, 재활용, 처분을 말한다.6. "처분"이란 폐기물의 소각·중화·파쇄· 고형화 등의 중간처분과 매립하거나 해역(해역)으로 배출하는 등의 최종처분을 말한다.7. "재활용"이란 다음 각 목의 어느 하나에 해당하는 활동을 말한다.가. 폐기물을 재사용·재생이용하거나 재사용·재생 이용할 수 있는 상태로 만드는 활동나. 폐기물로부터 「에너지법」 제2조 제1호에 따른 에너지를 회수하거나 회수할 수 있는 상태로 만들거나 폐기물을 연료로 사용하는 활동으로서 환경부령으로 정하는 활동제13조(폐기물의 처리 기준 등)① 누구든지 폐기물을 처리하려는 자는 대통령령으로 정하는 기준과 방법을 따라야 한다.제13조의2(폐기물의 재활용 용도 또는 방법)② 제1항 각 호에 따라 재활용하여야 하는 폐기물의 종류, 구체적인 재활용 방법은 환경부령으로 정한다.제17조(사업장폐기물배출자의 의무 등)① 사업장폐기물을 배출하는 사업자(이하 "사업장폐기물배출자"라 한다)는 다음 사항을 지켜야 한다.1. 사업장에서 발생하는 모든 폐기물을 적정하게 처리하여야 한다.3. 제18조 제1항에 따라 폐기물의 처리를 위탁하려면 사업장폐기물배출자는 수탁자가 제13조에 따른 폐기물의 처리 기준과 방법 또는 제13조의2에 따른 폐기물의 재활용 용도 또는 방법에 맞게 폐기물을 처리할 능력이 있는지를 환경부령으로 정하는 바에 따라 확인한 후 위탁하여야 한다.제18조(사업장폐기물의 처리)① 사업장폐기물배출자는 그의 사업장에서 발생하는 폐기물을 스스로 처리하거나 제25조제3항에 따른 폐기물처리업의 허가를 받은 자, 폐기물처리 신고자, 제4조나, 제5조에 따른 폐기물처리시설을 설치·운영하는 자, 「건설폐기물의 재활용촉진에 관한 법률」 제21조에 따라 건설폐기물 처리업의 허가를 받은 자 또는 「해양환경관리법」 제70조 제1항 제1호에 따라 폐기물 해양 배출업의 등록을 한 자에게 위탁하여 처리하여야 한다.구 폐기물관리법(2011. 9. 7. 대통령령 제23126호로 개정되어 시행된 것)제7조(폐기물의 처리기준 등)② 제1항에 따른 폐기물의 처리에 관한 구체적인 기준과 방법은 환경부령으로 정한다.구 폐기물관리법 시행규칙 (2011. 9. 27.환경부령 제422호로 개정되어 시행된 것)제14조(폐기물 처리 등의 구체적인 기준·방법)영 제7조 제2항에 따른 폐기물의 처리에 관한 구체적인 기준과 방법은 별표 5와 같다.[별표5] - 폐기물의 처리에 관한 구체적 기준 및 방법3. 사업장일반폐기물의 기준 및 방법라. 처리의 경우1) 공통기준나) 재활용이 가능한 폐기물은 법 제13조의2에 따라 재활용하여야 한다.2) 사업장일반폐기물의 종류별 처리기준 및 방법타) 폐주물사는 다음의 어느 하나에 해당하는 방법으로 처분하여야 한다.(1) 관리형 매립시설에 매립하여야 한다.제14조의3(재활용기준 등)② 법 제13조의2 제1항 및 제2항에 따른 재활용 기준, 재활용하여야 하는 폐기물의 종류 및 구체적인 재활용 방법은 별표 5의2와 같다.[별표 5의2] - 폐기물의 재활용 기준 및 구체적인 재활용 방법2. 지정폐기물을 제외한 사업장폐기물을 재활용하여 건축·토목공사의 성토재·보조기층재 · 도로기층재와 매립시설의 복토용 등으로 이용하는 경우가, 재활용 대상폐기물은 광재·분진·도자기조각·석탄재·연탄재·점토점결 폐주물사·폐석회·폐석고·폐내화물· 폐콘크리트 전주(사업장일반폐기물만 해당한다), 석재가공과정이나 벤토나이트 제조공정에서 발생하는 폐석재, 레미콘제조공정에서 발생하거나 건설현장에서 반품된 폐레미콘, 무기성 오니[하수준설토(고형물 중 유기성 물질의 함량이 7퍼센트 이하인 것만 해당한다), 토기·자기·내화물·시멘트·콘크리트·석제품의 제조 및 가공시설·건설공사장의 세륜(세륜)시설, 수도사업용 정수시설, 비금속광물 분쇄시설(굴착시설을 포함한다) 또는 토사세척시설에서 발생하는 무기성 오니로서 수분함량 70퍼센트 이하로 탈수·건조한 것만 해당한다]나. 재활용 용도는 관계 법령에 따라 인·허가된 건축·토목공사의 성토재·보조기층재·도로기층재 및 매립시설의 복토용 등으로 이용하는 경우만 해당한다.다. 재활용할 때에는 다음 사항을 지켜야 한다.3) 석탄재·연탄재·점토점결 폐주물사·무기성오니는 일반토사류나 건설폐재류를 재활용한 토사류를 부피기준으로 50퍼센트 이상 혼합하여 사용하여야 한다. 다만, 석탄재에 일반토사류나 건설폐재류를 재활용한 토사류를 혼합하여 사용하면 해당 건축·토목공사의 설계시공지침이나 도로공사표준시방서의 품질기준에 부적합하게 되는 경우에는 혼합하지 아니할 수 있다.제17조(사업장폐기물배출자의 확인 등)연혁판례문헌① 법 제17조 제1항 제3호에 따라 다음 각 호에 해당하는 사업장폐기물배출자는 폐기물처리업 허가증 또는 폐기물처리 신고 증명서 사본, 법 제40조 제1항에 따른 방치폐기물 처리 이행보증을 확인할 수 있는 서류 사본(그 밖의 사업장폐기물배출자는 폐기물처리업 허가증이나 폐기물처리 신고 증명서 사본)이 포함된 별지 제5호 서식의 수탁처리능력 확인서를 수탁자로부터 제출받아야 한다.2. 지정폐기물이 아닌 다음 각 목의 사업장폐기물을 배출하는 자나. 광재, 분진(분진), 폐사(폐주물사 및 샌드블라스트폐사를 말한다. 이하 같다), 도자기조각(폐내화물 및 재벌구이 전에 유약을 바른 도자기조각을 말한다. 이하 같다), 소각재, 안정화 또는 고형화처리물, 폐촉매, 폐흡착제 또는 폐흡수제(각각 월 평균 1톤 이상 배출되는 경우에만 해당한다)

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion that the former Wastes Control Act is not clear

Even in accordance with the above provisions, waste gas manufacturers, which are commercial wastes, should be recycled in accordance with the standards and methods prescribed by Presidential Decree, and according to the relevant provisions of attached Table 5 of the Enforcement Rule, if recyclables are possible, waste gas manufacturers which are industrial wastes, shall be recycled in accordance with Article 13-2 of the Act, and if not, shall be buried in a management-type landfill facility. However, according to attached Table 5-2 of the Enforcement Rule, waste gas manufacturers among waste gas stations, “where waste gas manufacturers, among waste gas stations, use earth and sand products for filling up assistive devices, floor materials, road structures, and landfill facilities, etc., which are approved and permitted construction and civil engineering works,” which can be recycled by mixing at least 50 percent of earth and sand products, which are recycled as general soil and sand products or construction waste materials, with the volume criteria.

Therefore, it is clear that, if the provisions on the treatment of waste disposal agents under the former Wastes Control Act are interpreted systematically, the waste disposal agent among waste disposal agents can recycle under certain standards and conditions, but it does not meet the standards and conditions, or does not fall under the waste disposal agent, it is clear that the waste disposal agent should reclaim it in a management-type landfill facility.

The Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion to the effect that only one waste master is designated under the type and classification code of wastes, there is room to interpret all waste masters as being recyclable regardless of whether they are occineods or chemical occines, or (if wastes recyclers are wastes recyclers), it is not clear that the relevant laws are unclear.

B. As to the assertion that he lost the nature of waste by removing hazardous substances

According to Article 13-2(2) of the Wastes Control Act and Article 14-3(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act and Article 14-2 subparag. 2 and 26 of the attached Table 5-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act that provide for the standards for recycling wastes and specific recycling methods, the recycling method of waste gas stations is limited, and in the case of waste gas stations, there are no methods to recycle them. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendants can recycle them solely on the basis that the defendants removed the relevant hazardous substances. Thus, the Defendants’ and

C. As to the assertion that there was no perception of illegality

In addition, according to Article 17 (1) 3 of the former Wastes Control Act or Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, an industrial waste discharger discharging waste disposal plants shall clearly state that he/she has received a copy of the license for waste disposal business or the certificate of report on waste disposal, which includes the kind, quantity, disposal method, etc. of wastes that can be disposed of by the person entrusted with the disposal of wastes, and the certificate of entrusted disposal capacity, and the certificate of permission for waste disposal business and the confirmation of entrusted disposal capacity are clearly stated as the waste disposal business as the waste subject to business. The Defendants’ assertion that the business operator discharging waste in a place of business did not recognize the relevant provisions, and that the Defendants’ assertion that there was no perception