beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is established for the purpose of discontinuance recycling, etc., and the defendant B is the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd.
A person, other than those who have obtained permission for waste disposal business or intend to install waste disposal facilities, shall report thereon to the Minister of Environment.
Defendant
B Without filing the aforementioned report, the Defendant installed and operated two compressed facilities with a capacity of 100 maths, which constitute mechanical recycling facilities, among the waste disposal facilities, at the fixed location of the Defendant Company from December 3, 2011 to November 2, 2012.
B. The Defendant Company, as its representative, committed a violation of the law stated in paragraph (1).
2. Each act recorded in the facts charged above is an offense falling under Article 67, Article 66 subparag. 11, or Article 29(2) of the Wastes Control Act, and the act of installing waste disposal facilities without reporting pursuant to the above Acts and subordinate statutes is subject to punishment.
However, each of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant B installed each compressed facility listed in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the above evidence [in particular, according to the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant, the statement of the company register, the written contract for the acceptance of the transaction, and the written report on the establishment of each compressed facility], the person who installed each of the above compressed facilities at the above workplace without reporting it is not Defendant B, and Defendant B merely takes over all of the facilities installed in the workplace including each compressed facility installed without reporting it from E around May 201, and it is difficult to view that Defendant B succeeds to the duty to report each of the above compressed facilities under Article 33(1) of the above Act.
If so, the Defendants did not report.