Defendant 1 and two others

Yellow studio (prosecution) and Kim Young-young (public trial)

Law Firm C&S et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and by a fine of twenty thousand won.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 1 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Defendant 1 shall order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. are acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence among these judgments shall be announced publicly.

【2017 Highest 1309】

1. Violation of the National Technical Qualifications Act by Defendant 1 (Defendant 2);

No person shall lend his/her national technical qualification certificate from any other person.

Nevertheless, from January 3, 2017 to February 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 200,000 per month to Nonindicted 2 to use for obtaining a comprehensive recycling business license in the name of △△△△△; and (b) borrowed Nonindicted 2’s license as a water environmental industrial engineer in the name of Nonindicted 2 on condition that Nonindicted 2 subscribe to the national health insurance and employment insurance in the name of Nonindicted

2. Violation of the Wastes Control Act by Defendant 1

(a) No person shall obtain a license for a waste treatment business by fraud or other improper means;

Nevertheless, around January 16, 2017, in order to obtain a comprehensive waste recycling business license from the Kimpo-si ( Address 4 omitted) and office Kimpo-si, the Defendant used Nonindicted 2’s license as a technical human resources of △△△△△△△, using the water environment industrial engineer certificate of △△△△△△△, and the Defendant obtained a license to conduct a comprehensive recycling business of 401 tons of the permissible storage quantity for waste electrical appliances, waste telecommunications equipment, and waste synthetic resin from Kimpo-si ( Address 5 omitted) in Kimpo-si ( Address 5 omitted) by entering the current status of equipment as if he/she did not have any recycling facilities at all.

As a result, the Defendant obtained a waste disposal business license by fraud or other improper means.

(b) No person shall dispose of industrial wastes in any place other than those prepared by a Special Self-Governing City Mayor, a Special Self-Governing Province Governor, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, or the manager of a facility, such as

Nevertheless, from January 23, 2017 to March 23, 2017, the Defendant brought in commercial wastes, such as waste synthetic resin, waste concrete, etc., at approximately KRW 7,578 tons, into the farmland located in Kimpo-si ( Address 6 omitted), ( Address 7 omitted), ( Address 8 omitted), ( Address 9 omitted), and ( Address 10 omitted).

【2017 Highest 2217 (Joint)】

A person who intends to engage in the business of collecting, transporting, recycling, or disposing of wastes shall obtain permission from the competent authority with facilities, equipment, and technical capabilities in accordance with the standards prescribed by the relevant statutes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, along with Nonindicted 9 (Defendant 1), established a waste disposal business entity under the name of the Defendant and decided to collect and store wastes. From July 1, 2016 to August 1, 2016, without obtaining permission from the competent authority, established the “△△△△△△△△△” business entity from around July 1, 2016 to around August 2016, and received approximately KRW 10 to 120,000 per ton from around KRW 10 to KRW 120,000 per ton, and collected and stored commercial wastes, such as waste fibers, waste synthetic resin, etc., in the above △△△△△△△△△△△△△ building.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 9, engaged in waste disposal business without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

【2017 Highest 1309】

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 10

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the police against Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 12, 13, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 21, and Defendant 2 (a copy)

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 13

1. General waste recycling business license, certificate of report on the installation of air emission facilities, certificate of noise and vibration emission facilities, business registration certificate, copy of national technical qualification certificate, health insurance acquisition and loss certificate (excluding public prosecution 2), noise, vibration emission facilities change report, report on change of air waste disposal facilities, report on change of air waste disposal facilities, report on change of waste disposal business, and succession to rights and obligations

1. Each internal investigation report (including photographs of dump truck site and materials to be submitted for dump viewing, related to materials to be submitted for △△△△△, related technical human resources, and each attached document);

1. Each investigation report (the attachment I, II, III, IV, V, and VI of fire field photographs);

【2017 Highest 2217 (Joint)】

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. The police interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 9 (Duplicate)

1. The statement of Nonindicted 8

1. A real estate monthly rent contract and a business trip report;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Subparagraph 6 of Article 64, Article 25(3) of the Wastes Control Act (the fact that a license for a waste disposal business has been obtained falsely, the choice of imprisonment), Article 63 Subparag. 1, Article 8(1) of the Wastes Control Act (the fact that wastes are dumped in a place other than the designated place, the concurrent imposition of imprisonment and fines), Articles 26(3)1, 15(2) of the National Technical Qualifications Act (the fact that a license for a waste disposal business has been obtained falsely, the choice of imprisonment, and the

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The violation of the Wastes Control Act needs to be punished strictly by an act that undermines environmental conservation and the qualitative improvement of the people's lives. Defendant 1 was unable to dispose of wastes from the beginning due to lack of capacity to dispose of wastes, such as obtaining permission for a waste disposal business by unlawful means, and thus is not good. Defendant 1 brought in by △△△△△△△△△△△△ to 7,578 tons more than 18 times the permitted volume of waste and did not properly manage the accumulated waste, and caused a fire to the waste. The current cost of disposal of wastes is at least KRW 1,100,000,000,000,000 won, etc., the nature of the crime is not good. However, in light of the various sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, such as the fact that Defendant 1 is against his own misconduct, and there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine, the same sentence as the order shall be determined.

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

A. Defendant 2

Anyone who intends to collect, transport, store, and dispose of wastes shall collect, transport, and store wastes by classifying them according to their kind and nature, their recyclability by condition, whether they are inflammable or combustibility, and shall comply with the waste treatment standards and methods, such as incineration.

Nevertheless, from the early February 2017 to March 16, 2017, the Defendant did not properly separate and select combustible wastes, such as waste wood, waste plates, waste synthetic resin, waste plastics, and waste vinyl, which were brought into the construction site, etc. of a total of 481 tons in order to reduce the cost of disposal of inflammable wastes at the business site of Defendant 3, which was located in Gyeonggi-si ( Address 11 omitted) from the early February 2017 to the early March 16, 2017, and instead discharged and disposed of them through Defendant 1, who is the representative of △△△△△△△△△, without properly separating or selecting them according to the inflammable or incombustibility of combustible wastes. Accordingly, the fire occurred at ( Address 6 omitted), ( Address 7 omitted), ( Address 8 omitted), ( Address 9 omitted), and ( Address 10 omitted.

Accordingly, the defendant has contaminated the surrounding environment by disposing of wastes in violation of waste disposal standards.

B. Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 3”)

The defendant 2, who is the representative director of the defendant, committed a violation as prescribed in paragraph (2) in connection with the defendant's business.

2. Determination

A. Article 66 subparag. 1 and Article 13(1) of the Wastes Control Act, the applicable provisions of the facts charged, which are applicable mutatis mutandis, shall punish “a person who has contaminated the surrounding environment by disposing of wastes in violation of the waste disposal standards.” Therefore, in order to recognize this part of the facts charged, the fact that the Defendant disposed of wastes in violation of the waste disposal standards and caused fire to the △△△△△△△△△△△△, thereby causing the occurrence of

B. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor is difficult to view that this part of the facts charged is sufficiently proven to the extent that it excludes a reasonable doubt, and there is no other sufficient evidence.

① The Defendants consistently asserted to the effect that the △△△△△△△△ in the operation of Defendant 1 was aware of the normal comprehensive recycling business chain, and that the instant wastes are deemed to be normally disposed of through Defendant 1, and that there was no intention to commit a violation of the Wastes Control Act. The Defendants’ assertion is credibility in the following point.

Since the waste synthetic resin is also included in the subject wastes that the △△△△△△ may be disposed of by the △△△△△△ under the permit for the comprehensive waste recycling business of the △△△△△△△△, the Defendants are likely to have known that the △△△△△△△△

The waste that Defendant 3 carried out to △△△△△△△△ is indicated as waste synthetic resin in the system. The △△△△△△△, including Defendant 3, brought in wastes from Nonindicted Co. 27, Nonindicted Co. 28, Nonindicted Co. 29, Nonindicted Co. 30, etc., and some of the companies did not immediately immediately have been registered in the system, and not separately manage the waste that Defendant 1 received from the above companies. As such, there is no way to find out whether Defendant 3’s waste discharged from the company was properly discharged from the system and otherwise discharged wastes different from those registered in the system.

In addition, the reason why Defendant 3 carried out the instant wastes through △△△△△△△△ was due to the spread of the volume of the goods carried in by the existing trading partners, such as Nonindicted Co. 31 and Nonindicted Co. 32, which are the previous trading partners, and there was no particular difference between the cost of carrying out wastes and the cost of discharging wastes. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 3 discharges waste synthetic resin through △△△△△△ in order to lower the cost of waste disposal.

㉣ △△△△이 종합재활용업 허가증상의 폐기물 처리대상에 폐합성수지가 포함되어 있는 이상 피고인들에게 △△△△의 폐기물 보관령이나 1일 처리양, 처리시설 등을 확인할 의무까지 있다고 볼 수도 없다.

(2) Furthermore, inasmuch as the Defendants carried out waste synthetic resin to △△△△△△ in accordance with a lawful disposal contract, the management of waste synthetic resin is merely deemed the responsibility of △△△△△, and the Defendants are not obliged to prevent fire from being caused by wastes in the management area of △△△△△.

3. Determination

Thus, each of the facts charged in this part constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the acquittal is pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58

Judges Cho Jong-chul