logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.02.07 2012노3678
수질및수생태계보전에관한법률위반등
Text

Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part on the defendant A, C, E, and F and the guilty part on the defendant B, and 2.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, C, and E on March 2, 2011, the sample taken up around 00:45 on or around March 2, 2011 cannot be seen as having been taken out from the final outlet of Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant E”), and it cannot be used as evidence because it did not comply with the “the fair water pollution test standards” in collecting and preserving the sample. Even if the wastewater containing water pollutants exceeding the permissible discharge standards was discharged on or around March 2, 2011, the above Defendants were normally operated preventive facilities, and thus, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of violating the Water Quality and Ecosystem Conservation Act of March 2, 2011 among the facts charged against the said Defendants.

B) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, Defendant A, B, C, and D conspired with each other to discharge wastewater containing water pollutants exceeding the permissible emission levels without operating prevention facilities normally from September 2008 to July 2010. Defendant B and D participated in the discharge of wastewater on March 2, 201. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Water Quality and Ecosystem Conservation Act from September 2008 to July 2010; Defendant B’s violation of the Water Quality and Ecosystem Conservation Act among the facts charged against Defendant B; Defendant B’s violation of the facts charged against Defendant D; Defendant A, B, C, and D’s violation of the Water Quality and Ecosystem Conservation Act from September 2008 to July 2010; and Defendant B’s violation of the facts charged against Defendant D’s each of the facts charged against Defendant D, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duty of Defendant A, B, and D’s violation of the Water Quality and Ecosystem Conservation Act.

arrow