[1] An industrial waste discharger subject to punishment for a violation of Article 60 subparagraph 2 of the former Wastes Control Act when he/she entrusts the disposal of wastes

[2] In a case where a person who installs and operates a waste disposal facility transfers and disposes of water pollutants, etc. to each disposal facility during the process of disposing of wastes, whether the person shall maintain and manage the pollutants to be discharged within the permissible discharge level for the transportation and disposal facility (negative)

[3] Requirements for punishing a violation of Article 61 subparagraph 14 of the former Wastes Control Act

[4] The case holding that the act of discharging food resources-making facilities in a sanitary treatment place in excess of the permissible discharge level as a sewage terminal does not constitute a violation of Article 61 subparagraph 14 of the former Wastes Control Act

[1] Articles 25(1) and 60 subparag. 2 (see current Article 65 subparag. 2) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 8213, Jan. 3, 2007) / [2] Article 30-3(1) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 8213, Jan. 3, 2007; see current Article 31(1)); Article 24 [Attachment 8] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Ordinance of Ministry of Environment No. 226, Jan. 9, 2007; see current Article 42 [Attachment 11]; Article 8 [Attachment 5] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 0203, Apr. 4, 2006; see current Article 36 subparag. 13, 2017] Article 36 subparag. 416 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes of the Wastes Control Act / [see current Article 136 subparag. 136 subparag. 136

[3] Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4150 decided Dec. 8, 2005 (Gong2006Sang, 131)

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 2006No2008 Decided June 13, 2007

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal on Article 2 of the facts charged

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty as to the part of the facts charged that the commercial waste discharger disposed of industrial waste in an improper manner by reclaiming approximately 24 tons of waste plastics, which is industrial waste, in collusion with the defendant 1, at the sanitary treatment facility of this case, at the sanitary treatment facility of this case, without permission, at the sanitary treatment facility of this case on December 23, 2002, at the sanitary treatment facility of this case. After considering the adopted evidence, the non-indicted corporation obtained permission for waste collection and transportation business, and the waste reclamation constitutes the final disposal of waste, since the above non-indicted corporation's disposal of waste constitutes an act deviating from the scope of its business. Furthermore, the above non-indicted corporation's disposal of waste in this case was unlawful as it goes beyond the scope of its business, and further, it was difficult for the non-indicted corporation to invalidate the waste synthetic compound in this case to the extent that it was difficult to incinerate, cut, or melt, and then it was not difficult for the non-indicted 2 to incinerate the above general waste of this case.

However, the judgment of the court below is not acceptable.

Article 60 Subparag. 2 of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 8213, Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter “Act”) provides that “Any person who treats industrial wastes in violation of Article 25(1) of the Act shall be punished.” Article 25(1) of the Act provides that “Any person who discharges industrial wastes directly disposes of wastes generated from his/her place of business or obtains permission for waste disposal business under Article 26(3) of the Act, who recycles another person’s wastes under Article 44-2, who installs and operates waste disposal facilities under Article 4 or 5, or who entrusts another person who has registered waste discharge business under Article 18 of the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act with the disposal of wastes.” Article 24(1)3 of the Act provides that “Where any person entrusts any person with the collection, transportation, or disposal of wastes in violation of Article 25(1) of the Act, any person who intends to entrust any person with the disposal of wastes in accordance with the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.”

This part of the facts charged is the purport that the defendant, in collusion with the above co-defendant 1 of the court below which is the complaint of the above business place, disposed of in an improper manner while disposing of industrial wastes generated at the above business place by himself. In such a case, it shall not be punished pursuant to Article 60 (2) of the Act, apart from the fact that there is room for punishment pursuant to Article 60 (1) or Article 61 (1) of the Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on its grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 60 subparag. 2 of the Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (it is unlawful for the lower court to holding that the first instance court’s holding that it was unlawful to reclaim the second call to the instant landfill as it goes beyond the scope of its business, on the premise of facts different from the facts charged in this part of the facts charged, and thus, is without merit).

2. As to the ground of appeal on Articles 3 and 4 of the facts charged of this case

(3) The court below found the Defendant guilty of discharging wastewater in consultation with the public Defendant 1 at the lower court’s 20-day wastewater treatment facilities at the sanitary treatment facility of this case from 70-day to 30-hours of the lower court’s 5-day wastewater treatment facilities at the 16.0m or 450-hours of wastewater containing 1,450 cubic meters (the permissible discharge standards 10m or liter) and from 20-day to 3m or 65m or less of the surrounding environment of the first instance judgment, so that wastewater treatment facilities can be discharged within the permissible discharge standards as set forth in the attached Table 1.5m or 8m or 5m or less of wastewater treatment facilities from 0-day to 6m or above of the lower court’s 10-day wastewater treatment facilities at the 7m or above of the lower court’s 5m or above of the lower court’s 10-day wastewater treatment facilities, notwithstanding the fact that wastewater treatment facilities are discharged within the same 10-day or 4m.

However, this part of the judgment below is not acceptable.

Article 61 of the Act provides for the punishment of persons who pollute their surroundings by maintaining and managing the water pollution under the provisions of Article 30-3 (1). The provisions of Article 30-3 (1) of the Act provide that the persons who install and operate the disposal facilities of sewage shall maintain and manage such facilities in accordance with the management standards set by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment; and the provisions of Article 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 226, Jan. 9, 207; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") shall provide that the treatment facilities of water-quality pollutants under the provisions of Article 30-3 (1) of the Act shall be treated [limited to the annexed Table 8] and the standards for the treatment of water-quality pollutants under the provisions of subparagraph 2 of the same Article [limited to the treatment facilities of sewage not exceeding the permissible discharge standards set forth in the annexed Table 2] and that such facilities shall not apply to the treatment facilities of water-quality and sewage treatment facilities installed under the provisions of the same Act:

In full view of the above provisions, when a person who installs and operates a waste disposal facility discharges water-quality pollutants, specific substances harmful to water quality, or water from a waste disposal facility in the course of treating wastes; in the case of an intermediate disposal facility, the water pollution prevention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, sewage treatment facilities, or pollutants to be treated at the waste treatment facilities; in the case of a management-type landfill facility, the water pollution prevention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, sewage treatment facilities, or pollutants to be treated at other landfill facilities are transferred and disposed of to such facilities, such facilities shall not be maintained and managed so that water-quality pollutants, specific substances harmful to water quality, or water from a waste treatment facility under subparagraph 2 (b) (A) of attached Table 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Conservation Act can be discharged within the permissible discharge limits of the water pollution water as set forth in subparagraph 2 (b) (2) of the attached Table 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Conservation Act.

Meanwhile, in order to punish a violation of Article 61 subparag. 14 of the Wastes Control Act by maintaining and managing waste disposal facilities in breach of the standards for management of waste disposal facilities, the act of maintaining and managing waste disposal facilities in violation of the standards for management of waste disposal facilities must have to the extent that pollutants under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy such as Framework Act on Environmental Policy are discharged or to cause harm to human health or the environment (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4150, Dec. 8, 2005).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the content of sewage treatment 3 is less than 0.0 m. 1 m. m. 8 m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. 2 m. m. m. m. 2 m. m. m. m. m. 2 m. m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. 2 m. m. m. m. 2 m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. 2 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. m. 2 m. m. m. m. m.

Therefore, even if the defendant discharged wastewater exceeding the permissible discharge level as stated in each of the facts charged, as stated in this part, from the sewage terminal treatment plant of this case, the chemical oxygen demand, biological oxygen demand, and suspended solids demand, it can be said that such wastewater can be treated in the sewage terminal treatment plant to improve the quality of water below the statutory standards for discharged water from the sewage terminal treatment plant. Thus, the defendant cannot be punished pursuant to Article 61 subparagraph 14 of the Act for discharging food and resource-generating water exceeding the permissible discharge level as the sewage terminal treatment plant of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the surrounding environment was contaminated due to such wastewater discharge.

On the other hand, if the Defendant discharges the water, etc. containing pollutants, other than pollutants, which can be treated by the method of treating the above sewage terminal treatment facility, into the sewage terminal treatment facility, as stated in this part of the facts charged, it may be deemed that the Defendant maintained and managed the instant landfill facility in breach of the management standards, but it is difficult to view that the surrounding environment was contaminated as seen earlier.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges guilty, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 60 subparag. 14 of the Act and in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal on this part is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)