The meaning of "the act of dumping excreta" as prescribed in Article 37 (1) 2 of the Environmental Preservation Act;

The term “waste of excreta” prohibited by Article 37(1)2 of the Environment Conservation Act means dumping excreta in the state of foul waste without safe treatment by physical, chemical or biological means.

Articles 37 and 39 of the Environmental Preservation Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do836 Decided December 28, 1982

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Han-jin

Suwon District Court Decision 83No100 delivered on January 13, 1984

Supreme Court Decision 81Do836 Decided December 28, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Article 37 (1) 2 of the Environmental Preservation Act, the act of dumping excreta of an animal into public waters or forest without any justifiable reason is prohibited. Here, the act of dumping excreta means the act of dumping excreta in a state of foul waste without safe treatment by physical, chemical or biological means.

Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 39 of the same Act, when installing and operating the excreta terminal treatment facilities, the person who intends to operate the excreta terminal treatment facilities pursuant to the provisions of Article 14 (1) of the Waste Conservation Act shall obtain permission or approval from the head of the environmental office. Thus, it is clear that the excreta terminal treatment facilities, which are permitted or approved by the head of the environmental office under Article 39 of the same Act, are equipped with the facility standards and treatment methods stipulated in Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, since the excreta terminal treatment facilities, which are equipped with such facility standards and treatment methods, are managed safely by physical, chemical or biological methods and are not in the state of foul waste treatment, it cannot be viewed as being in conflict with the provisions of Article 37 of the same Act on the ground that the excreta terminal treatment facilities are discharged into public waters.

However, according to the records, it is clear that the sewage terminal treatment facilities operated by the defendants are not installed in conformity with facility standards and treatment methods with permission or approval granted under the aforementioned garbage cleaning Act. Thus, since the water quality of discharged water discharged into public waters through the above sewage terminal treatment plant is measured specifically and it is confirmed whether it is discharged in the state of foul waste or discharged in the safe state of treatment of foul waste, it can be found that the defendant's violation of Article 37 (1) 2 of the Environmental Preservation Act is possible. As a result of the examination of evidence, the court below judged that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the water quality of discharged water through the above sewage terminal treatment plant is discharged in the state of foul waste.

Examining the contents of evidence examined by the court below in accordance with the records, we affirm the above judgment below and did not err by the rules of evidence as alleged in the arguments in the process of the preparation of evidence, and each entry of the protocol of statement, the interrogation of evidence, and the protocol of examination of evidence, such as lives, shall not be deemed to have been rejected by the court below without reliance, and

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)