beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant I against the defendant I is reversed.
Defendant
I shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles merely made a false statement at the prosecutor’s office as if he was the actual operator in order for Defendant B, his father, to not be punished during the period of repeated offense, and there was no conspiracy or participation in the instant crime with Defendant B.
B. In light of the fact-finding by Defendant A, B, C (hereinafter “C”), and D (hereinafter “D”), the Defendants’ treatment of wastes was generated around the place of business, and there was no fact that the aforementioned Defendants discharged the water from the public waters.
C. The lower court’s sentence on the above Defendants other than Defendant A’s remaining Defendants (Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and two months, Defendant C, and D: fine of ten million won, Defendant E, G, I: Imprisonment with prison labor for April, suspension of execution of two years, Defendant F, and Defendant H: each fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail on the grounds that Defendant A and the defense counsel at the lower court have the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of this part of the judgment, and on the grounds that Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion were stated in the first clause of Article 1 of the judgment
In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, namely, Z which has several conversations with the defendant A during the period of the crime of this case, and it is a person who has transported part of the waste of this case, and in addition to the fact that the investigation agency stated that "it was the defendant B, but the defendant A also ordered to transport the waste of this case."