(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.05.30 2016노971 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.05.30 2016노971

수질및수생태계보전에관한법률위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the color of the oil stored in the Defendant’s warehouse differs from that of the oil leaked in the river and the coast. The Defendant did not investigate the ingredients of the oil buried on the Defendant’s warehouse outer wall, and there is no evidence to prove the facts charged, such as there is no evidence to prove that there is the same composition of the oil leaked in the Defendant’s warehouse, and there is no evidence to prove that there is the same composition of the oil leaked in the Defendant’s warehouse, the Defendant discharged the oil stored in the Defendant’s warehouse and contaminated the river and coast.

The lower court, which determined the person as above, erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the appellate court.

1) Even by virtue of the photograph taken and submitted by the Defendant, oil was leaked from the Defendant’s warehouse to the underground space near the warehouse, and the lower part of the warehouse’s wall.

2) It seems that there is no investigation into ingredients of the oil taken out from the outside wall of the defendant's warehouse. However, there was a result that the ingredients of the oil taken in the coast and the defendant's warehouse and the oil taken out in the oil storage tank located in the defendant's warehouse were similar to those of the oil taken out in the coast and the defendant's warehouse, and that the ingredients of the oil taken out in the drainage hole adjacent to the defendant's warehouse and the defendant's warehouse are very similar to those of the oil taken out in the warehouse.

3) At the lower court’s court, I determined that the oil leaked out of the Defendant’s warehouse due to a large amount of oil smells in the Defendant’s warehouse.

The police officer, who called to the warehouse of the defendant, stated that there is no facility to leak oil in addition to the warehouse of the defendant.

In addition, a photograph taken around a defendant's warehouse at the time of seizure and search shall also be taken.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2016.03.22 2015고정426

-부산고등법원 2009. 7. 24. 선고 2009누942 판결

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.02.07 2017고단3579

-부산지방법원 2017.08.10 2016고정3104