[1] The meaning of "abusing excreta" under Article 15 (1) 2 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act

[2] The case holding that in a case where a person illegally dumpeds foul waste treatment through his/her own-manufactured mobile waste treatment vehicles to a certain degree, it is unlawful to find the person guilty of the above foul waste treatment without care as to the degree of the "waste" under Article 15 (1) 2 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act

[1] Article 15 (1) 2 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 8466 of May 17, 2007) / [2] Article 15 (1) 2 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 8466 of May 17, 2007) and Article 78 subparagraph 3 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Go Sung-hoon

Suwon District Court Decision 2008No689 Decided June 20, 2008

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

1. The judgment of the court below

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: “Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 is a corporation established for the purpose of treating excreta and manufacturing mobile debris vehicles; although no one does commit an act of dumping excreta, etc. in sewage culvert, which is a public waterway prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, Defendant 1 maintained the judgment of the first instance court that found Defendant 2 guilty on June 12, 2007, on the top of the excellent Manle, which is installed on the same line, which is located on the 679 U.S. Madong-dong 679 U.S., Madong-dong 207.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, the above decision of the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

According to Article 15(1)2 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 8466 of May 17, 2007, the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 8466 of Nov. 18, 2007, prior to the amendment by the Act on the Conservation of Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem; hereinafter “Act”), the act of dumping excreta into public waters without justifiable grounds. Here, the act of dumping excreta refers to the act of dumping excreta as it is without safely treating excreta by physical, chemical, or biological means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do1738, Dec. 11, 1984). Meanwhile, in light of the legislative purpose of Article 15(1)2 of the former Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 8466 of Nov. 18, 2007, the Act was enacted to prevent harm to public health and environment caused by water pollution and to inherit the water quality of public waters to the future.

However, according to the records, Defendant 1’s dumping of excreta can be known to have gone through the purification process to a certain extent as the number of excreta after disposing of excreta by using a vehicle for a vexative excreta treatment, and even according to the statement in the court of first instance by the non-indicted who is a controlling public official, it is clear that Defendant 1’s dumping of excreta is not itself because it is because it is merely a luxor, not a luxor, and that it is merely a luxor, and that it is apparent that Defendant 1’s dumping of excreta is not itself (the prosecutor also prosecuted as dumping of excreta that is not itself). Accordingly, if Defendant 1’s dumping of excreta is not itself, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it can be deemed that the Defendants’ act constitutes “waste”, namely, only when it can be deemed that it contains wastewater to cause harm to public health and environment due to water pollution, it can be said that the Defendants’ act constitutes “an act of dumping excreta” as provided in Article 15(1)2 of the Act.

Therefore, the court below should have determined whether the waste treatment volume, which Defendant 1 dumped, should have caused harm to people's health and the environment due to water pollution, should have determined whether the waste treatment volume, which was likely to cause harm to people's health and the environment, constitutes foul waste as provided by Article 15 (1) 2 of the Act. However, the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of the remaining charges. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the concept of foul waste as provided by Article 15 (1) 2 of the Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which clearly affected the judgment.

3. Conclusion

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 Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)