Whether a person who discharges pollutants can be punished for a violation of Article 56-2 subparagraph 4 of the Water Quality Conservation Act by installing and operating discharging facilities and prevention facilities without permission or report (negative)

According to Article 56-2 subparagraph 4 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, a person who falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 15 (1) of the same Act shall be punished, and Article 15 (1) of the same Act shall not apply to a business operator (including the representative of joint prevention facilities under Article 13 (3) of the same Act) when he/she operates discharge facilities and prevention facilities. "the business operator" under Article 11 of the same Act provides that "the person who has obtained permission or permission for alteration under Article 10 (1) through (3) of the same Act, or who has made a report or a report of alteration (hereinafter "business operator")" under Article 15 (1) of the same Act shall not be interpreted as a business operator under Article 11 of the same Act, and therefore, the person who does not have the above status as a business operator under Article 56-2 (1) of the same Act shall not be deemed to be a business operator who does any of the above acts of discharging pollutants without permission or a report of alteration under Article 15 (1) of the same Act.

Subparagraph 4 of Article 56-2 of the Water Quality Conservation Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 96No1932 delivered on January 16, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 56-2 subparagraph 4 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, a person who falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 15 (1) of the same Act shall be punished, and Article 15 (1) of the same Act provides that "the business operator (including the representative of joint prevention facilities under the provisions of Article 13 (3)) shall not engage in any of the following acts when operating discharge facilities and prevention facilities," and Article 11 of the same Act provides that "the business operator" under the provisions of Article 15 (1) of the same Act provides that "the person who has obtained permission or permission for change, or who has made a report or report of change (hereinafter referred to as "the business operator") under the provisions of Article 10 (1) through (3) of the same Act shall not be interpreted as a business operator as defined in Article 11 of the same Act."

If so, a person who committed an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 15 (1) of the same Act, committed an act falling under Article 56-2 subparagraph 4 of the same Act, shall be deemed to be a provision prohibiting the above act of the enterpriser, and the legal principle of the court below that the above act of the defendant who did not have the above status shall not be applied is justified.

In the above interpretation, there is a contradiction in punishing a person who discharges wastewater more heavily than where the person discharges wastewater without obtaining permission, permission for change, report or report on change as provided in Article 10 (1) through (3) of the same Act, and such circumstance is insufficient in the legal provisions. Thus, the above circumstance is only insufficient. Thus, it should not be interpreted by analogy and extension of the elements of the punishment law, separate from the legislative solution. There is no reason for this argument.

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

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)