[1] Whether a person who treats domestic wastes shall comply with the standards and methods prescribed in the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (affirmative)

[2] Whether "a person who treats wastes" under Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act includes a person who causes another person to dispose of wastes (affirmative)

[1] According to Article 12 and Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act, Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 6 (1) [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a person who intends to dispose of domestic wastes shall dispose of wastes in accordance with the standards and methods set forth above [Attachment 4].

[2] Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act provides that a person who treats wastes shall be punished in violation of Article 12 of the same Act, and "the person who treats wastes" under the same Article includes cases where another person has allowed another person to dispose of wastes.

[1] Articles 12 and 60 subparag. 1 of the Wastes Control Act, Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act, Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act [Attachment 4] / [2] Articles 12, 60 subparag. 1, and 61 subparag. 1 of the Wastes Control Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Busan District Court Decision 97No664 delivered on August 12, 1997

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

1. Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") punishs "a person who has disposed of wastes" in violation of Article 12 of the Act, and Article 61 subparagraph 1 of the Act punishs "a person who has collected, transported, or stored wastes in violation of Article 12 of the Act," so there is a difference in the elements of a crime, and there is no relationship between the former and the latter. Thus, the Defendants who were prosecuted for violating Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Act cannot be punished for violation of Article 61 subparagraph 1 of the Act without changing the indictment, and it is not necessary to examine whether the Defendants and co-defendant 1 and 2 of the first instance court who violated Article 59 (1) and Article 26 (1) of the Act by running the intermediate waste treatment business without permission. Therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. It shall be deemed ex officio.

A. The lower court: (a) concluded a contract with the Defendant 1 as the warden of the Yang Industrial Complex; (b) concluded an agreement with the Defendant 2 as to the disposal of new products while selling them through each logistics center, competent agency; and (c) concluded a contract with the Defendant for the disposal of such products, such as laundry and laundry to entrust the disposal of such products to the Defendant for the disposal of the first instance trial without permission on June 1995; and (d) concluded a contract with the Defendant 1 as to the disposal of such products by entrusting the disposal of such products to the Defendant for disposal of the first instance trial 3,00 won per 1,00 won and 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,000 won; and (e) concluded a contract with the Defendant 1 as to the disposal of such products by entrusting the disposal of such products to the Defendant 2,100 laundry and treatment of such products to the Defendant 1,600 laundry and treatment of such products.

(b) Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Act provides that "a person who intends to collect, transport, store, or dispose of wastes in violation of Article 12" shall be punished; Article 12 of the Act provides that "a person who intends to collect, transport, store, or dispose of wastes shall do so by the standards and methods prescribed by Presidential Decree"; Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "the standards and methods for the collection, transport, storage, disposal of wastes under Article 12 of the Act shall be as follows; subparagraph 1 of the Act provides that "the person shall collect, transport, store, or dispose of wastes in accordance with the specific standards and methods prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment to minimize environmental pollution in the course of collection, transportation, storage, and disposal of wastes;" Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "the person who intends to dispose of wastes by an agent shall be punished for the disposal of wastes by a person who violates Article 6 (1) 1 of the Act, and that "the person who installs, transports, or disposes of wastes by another person who shall dispose of wastes by himself/herself in violation of the standards under Article 6 (2).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the standards for the disposal of page materials under the Wastes Control Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)