[1] Whether Article 3 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Conservation Act violates the principle of clarity as required by the principle of no punishment without the law, or the provision of invalidation beyond the scope of delegation by the mother law (negative)

[2] The meaning of "discharge facilities that produce specific substances harmful to water quality" under Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act

[3] The case holding that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s installation of an organic compound occurred from the wastewater discharge facility itself merely with a notice of inspection to the effect that the sample collected from the Defendant’s workplace contains an organic compound

[1] Article 3 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Conservation Act provides that "Gu Ri and its compound," a descriptive concept, which is a description of specific substances harmful to water quality, which are elements of Article 56 subparagraph 1 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, which are the elements of punishment provisions, shall be limited to the specific substances harmful to water quality, and the supplementary interpretation of the judge shall not be required. Since the above provision itself clearly recognizes the meaning of the matter as an ordinary person's understanding and judgment with the capacity to distinguish objects, it shall be possible to grasp the meaning of the above provision. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that there is little possibility of arbitrary enforcement of the law enforcement, as well as the predictability of what substance is "Gu Ri and its compound" as one of the specific substances harmful to water quality under Article 56 subparagraph 1 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, and it is in line with the purport of the permission system for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities, and it shall not be deemed unconstitutional and reasonable to limit the freedom and rights of an individual.

[2] The term "discharge facilities that produce specific substances harmful to water quality" under Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act means facilities where specific substances harmful to water quality, such as raw materials (including water), subsidiary raw materials, and additives, are generated in the course of the operation and process of wastewater discharge facilities, which cause chemical effects in the process of the process, and cause specific substances harmful to water quality.

[3] The case holding that it is difficult to readily conclude that a chemical compound was generated from the wastewater discharge facility installed by the defendant alone on the ground that the material, such as water reduction, actually used at the defendant's place of business, does not contain copper, etc., and that the sample collected to measure water pollution level, etc. is contained in the sample collected at the defendant's place of business on the ground that it is inappropriate

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, Article 56 subparagraph 1 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, Article 3 [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Conservation Act / [2] Article 10 (1) of the Water Quality Conservation Act, Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act / [3] Article 10 (1) of the Water Quality Conservation Act,

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Du6265 delivered on October 19, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 2432), Supreme Court Decision 98Do3665 delivered on November 16, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 100Sang, 100), Supreme Court Decision 98Du6289 delivered on November 24, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 157), Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3600 delivered on November 14, 200 (Gong203Ha, 2414)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 2002No5308 delivered on November 21, 2002

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. Summary of the primary facts charged

The Defendant, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Environment for installation of wastewater discharge facilities from January 11, 1999 to March 12, 2002, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Environment, provided four manufacturing facilities, etc. in which the Defendant was in the place of business of the “pump processing chain,” and discharged wastewater without permission through sewage pipes in the place of business, on an average of 823 square meters per day, due to the state in which the wastewater generated in the course of operating a salt manufacturing, etc., such as a cu compound, is contained.

B. Details of the statutes applicable to the primary facts charged as requested by the prosecutor

Article 56 subparagraph 1 of the Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 6451, Mar. 28, 2001; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that a person who installs discharge facilities or operates facilities using such discharge facilities shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, and Article 10 (1) of the Act provides that a person who intends to install discharge facilities shall obtain permission from the Minister of Environment under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17288, Jun. 30, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Conservation Act") provides that a person who intends to install discharge facilities shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding 50,000 won, and that a person may directly or indirectly install a specific substance harmful to water quality under subparagraph 3 of the attached Table 2 shall be punished by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.

C. The judgment of the court below

(1) In light of the fact that it is difficult to readily conclude that wastewater discharge facilities, including soil, water, and plants, are widely distributed (the average of 5PM-20P, average of 1.07PM, and 1.20 U.S.) and animals, etc. are widely distributed in each body as an essential material for the growth of new boundaries, etc., and that the amount of gym content among human beings is about 2 marbs and gyms of water so that it can not be easily determined by the former Enforcement Rule to the extent that it does not constitute a specific purpose of Article 2 of the former Enforcement Rule because it is difficult to use the same as the wastewater discharge facilities, and thus, it is extremely difficult to interpret that the former Enforcement Rule does not have any specific meaning of gymbs and gyms of water discharge facilities (the current Enforcement Rule does not have any specific meaning of gymbsing, gyming, and gymmetrics of human resources).

(2) Meanwhile, even if there is room to regard the enforcement rules of the instant case as valid, the lower court determined that the water quality pollution test notice under the request for water pollution level to the effect that the sample collected from the instant place of business contains 0.536§¯/liter (PM) is difficult to readily conclude that the previous chemical compounds were generated from the instant wastewater discharge facilities, and it is difficult to conclude that the wastewater discharge facilities of this case are subject to permission under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree, even if all evidence submitted otherwise by the prosecutor, since the wastewater discharge facilities of this case are not subject to permission under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree, in the case of clean and clean areas, 0.5PM in the case of clean areas, and 3PM in the case of water quality standards for drinking water under the Drinking Water Management Act and water quality standards for drinking water under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the invalidity of the instant Enforcement Rule

It is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the enforcement rules of this case not only violate the principle of clarity of penal law but also goes beyond the purpose of delegation of the parent law for the following reasons.

(1) Whether it goes against the principle of clarity

If there is a reasonable standard of interpretation to standardized or limit the types of acts that meet the elements of the crime as an understanding and judgment of ordinary people who have the ability to discern things by examining the legislative purpose, overall contents, structure, etc. of penal law, it does not violate the principle of clarity of penal law required by the principle of no punishment without law (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do3665 delivered on November 16, 200, etc.).

The enforcement rules of this case provide that "Gu Ri (Dong) and its compound, which are descriptive concepts that almost need to be interpreted by judges, as a kind of specific substances harmful to water quality, among the elements of punishment provisions under Article 56 subparagraph 1 of the Act, which are elements of punishment provisions, shall be limited to the specific substances harmful to water quality, and the supplementary interpretation of judges shall not be required. The contents of the above provision itself are clearly understood and judged by ordinary people with the ability to distinguish objects, and its meaning may be clearly understood and determined. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that there is sufficient predictability for people who are the parties to the crime, and that there is little possibility of arbitrary enforcement of law enforcement officers, and therefore, it is not a provision contrary to the principle of clarity required by the principle

On the other hand, the issue of whether the enforcement rules of this case, which are the elements of punishment, violate the principle of clarity required by the principle of legality or not shall be determined solely on the basis of the contents of the enforcement rules of this case, and whether they are prescribed as the contents of the enforcement rules of this case, and shall not be determined on the basis of whether they are actually prescribed. Thus, the court below's determination that the enforcement rules of this case are contrary to the principle of clarity, that is, whether it is necessary to specify the quantity of reasonable algoras, etc. which can be presumed to have occurred from wastewater discharge facilities, should be determined on the basis of the contents of the enforcement rules of this case, not on the basis of the contents of the enforcement rules of this case, but on the basis of the process of confirming the purport of delegation of the mother law, it should be examined from the perspective of whether the above circumstances are not reflected in the enforcement rules of this case at all, and whether they are illegal should be determined from the point of

(2) Whether it is beyond the scope of delegation by the mother law

Whether the head of each administrative division, etc. exceeds the scope of delegation of the parent law under Article 95 of the Constitution, shall be determined in comparison with the contents of the parent law order after objectively establishing the scope or limit of delegation of the parent law, considering not only the form and content of the directly delegated legal provision, but also the overall structure, purport, purpose, etc. of the parent law. Thus, if the contents of the law order are deemed to be specific and clear as being delegated by the parent law, or as being presumed to be within the scope of delegation of the parent law, or as being planned by the mother law, it shall not be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu8625, Sept. 12, 1997; 98Du6265, Oct. 19, 200; 98Du6289, Nov. 24, 200).

First, Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act, which is a direct delegated legal provision that is the basis of the instant Enforcement Rule, does not require that specific substances harmful to water quality be harmful to human health, etc., and rather delegates that such substances may directly or indirectly harm human health, etc. should be stipulated as specific substances harmful to water quality. If so, the risk that the Guide and its compound may harm human health and natural ecosystem is considered, while considering the potential risk that the Guide and its compound may harm human body and natural ecosystem, it cannot be concluded that the Guide and its compound have been defined as one of specific substances harmful to water quality without specifying the standard value, and that it goes beyond the purport of delegation of the aforementioned direct delegated legal provision.

On the other hand, the enforcement rules of this case shall be deemed to have functioned in embodying the meaning of Article 10(1) of the Act that provides for prior permission in the installation of wastewater discharge facilities in certain cases. Thus, the violation of the parent law of this case shall be determined by examining whether the permission system was established due to what is the law, and whether the law is the only object of the permission for facilities that discharge specific substances harmful to water quality exceeding the standard values that specifically harm human health, etc.

Therefore, the legislative purpose of the Water Quality Conservation Act is to enable all citizens to live in a healthy and pleasant environment. The legislative purpose of the Act is to identify the ‘prevention of harm to national health and environment' and ‘reasonable management and preservation of water quality' as the basic means to achieve this, and to present materials proving that a person who intends to install wastewater discharge facilities meets requirements for permission (Article 10(4) of the Act). When he/she installs the relevant discharge facilities after obtaining permission, he/she shall install water pollution prevention facilities to ensure that pollutants are discharged below the permissible emission standards under Article 8 of the Act (the main sentence of Article 11(1) of the Act), especially if he/she always discharges pollutants due to the function and process of the wastewater discharge facilities, he/she shall be exempted from the duty of installation of prevention facilities, and if he/she intends to install the wastewater discharge facilities or to install the facilities with a view to removing pollutants above the permissible emission standards, the Minister of Environment shall, without considering the legislative purpose of the Act’ and its effective enforcement regulations and shall always report the installation of the facilities to the Minister of Environment.

(3) Ultimately, the judgment of the court below on this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the meaning of the principle of clarity as required by the principle of no punishment without the law, its review criteria, and its determination criteria as to whether the parent law violated the law, etc. However, as seen next, the court below's fact-finding premised on the validity of the Enforcement Rule of this case can be accepted. Thus, such illegality cannot be deemed to have affected the judgment below.

B. As to the fact-finding by the lower court on the premise of the validity of the instant Enforcement Rule

(1) In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6610, Feb. 11, 2003).

(2) The term "discharge facilities that produce specific substances harmful to water quality" under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act refers to cases where specific substances harmful to water quality are generated from raw materials (including water), subsidiary materials, and additives used by a business entity for the purpose of the operation of wastewater discharge facilities, or chemical effects in the process of the operation thereof. Considering that the following circumstances acknowledged by the record are widely distributed with soil, water, animals, and plants, etc., it cannot be ruled out that accurate collection of samples can be detected due to reasons other than the function of wastewater discharge facilities and the process of the operation of the business. The production of wastewater by the defendant's place of business is generated in the process of washing water in order to ensure that it is difficult to find out the possibility of using wastewater discharged from blothethy to the designated business entity for the purpose of using wastewater discharge facilities, and it is difficult to say that there is no possibility that the defendant's samples can be collected in the process of using grhethy or gying samples for the purpose of using the samples of the business without permission.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)