Whether punishment for a violation of Article 50(1) and (3) of the former Environmental Conservation Act is repealed as a new establishment of Article 24 of the Wastes Control Act (negative)

The violation of Article 50 (1) and (3) of the former Environmental Preservation Act is a violation of Article 24 of the Wastes Control Act, which is a new corporation, and is subject to punishment under Article 43 (1) 6 of the same Act, and there is no new law. Therefore, it does not constitute a violation of Article 50 (1) and (3) of the same Act.

Articles 68 subparag. 1 and 67 subparag. 4 of the former Environmental Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 3903 of Dec. 31, 1986); Articles 24(1) and 43(1)6 of the Wastes Control Act; Article 1 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorneys Kim Jong-sik et al. (defendants et al.)

Busan District Court Decision 87No2415 delivered on September 23, 198

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence in the first instance judgment of the court below, since it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of this case against the defendants, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as pointed out in the judgment of the court below.

In the prosecutor's office that asserts that the admissibility of evidence is denied, the statement of the defendant 2, the statement of the misunderstandings, and the statement of the defendant 2, etc., which all the defendants consented to the admissibility of the evidence of this case in the court or recognized the authenticity and formation of the petition

In addition, the violation of Article 50(1) and (3) of the former Environmental Preservation Act is subject to punishment for the violation of Article 24 of the Wastes Control Act (the act of Defendant 3 is related to Defendant 2 and co-offenders), which is a new corporation, and the new law is limited to the punishment. Therefore, the Defendants’ act does not constitute a case where punishment is abolished due to the amendment or repeal of the law. The argument is

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)