logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노145
하수도법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor with respect to Defendant C (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles), the facts that Defendant C interfered with the flow of sewage by impeding the function of public sewerage, such as the entries in the instant facts charged, as in collusion with Defendant C and B, and at the same time, included in the public waters.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous or erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A and B (unfair sentencing) (limited to 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service order) on Defendant A and B is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal against the defendant C by the prosecutor

A. In the first instance trial, the additional prosecutor of the ancillary charge stated the facts charged as the primary charge. In the second instance, “Article 79, Article 75 subparag. 2 and Article 19 subparag. 5 of the Sewerage Act, Article 81, Article 78 subparag. 3 and Article 15 subparag. 1 subparag. 2 of the Water Quality and Water Quality Conservation Act, Article 40 of the Criminal Act” is “Article 81, Article 78 subparag. 3 of the Sewerage Act, Article 15 subparag. 1 subparag. 2 of the Water Quality and Water Quality Conservation Act, Article 40 of the Criminal Act,” and Article 45 subparag. 1 of the Act, which is applicable in the first instance trial, applied for the amendment

Therefore, although there is a change in the scope of adjudication, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court in relation to the primary facts charged, so this will first be examined.

B. On December 12, 2013, Defendant C, the operator of the public sewage treatment facilities in the books belonging to Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, ordered the replacement of the existing landfill-type waste treatment facilities and public sewage treatment facilities (hereinafter “instant septic tank”) from the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Headquarters for the E sewerage maintenance work (hereinafter “instant septic tank”).

arrow