logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노3977
항만법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants dumped with dredging soil in the new line dredging speculation zone designated for dredging soil. Thus, the Defendants’ speculation is not prohibited by the Harbor Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, but with the authority to permit dredging soil to M who directly manages the new line dredging soil speculation zone.

Since the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case without the intention to violate the Port Act, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is Defendant B, a contractor who contracted the installation of J breakwater from Changwon City, and Defendant A is the site warden of Defendant B.

1) No person who is an act likely to interfere with the conservation or use of a harbor without justifiable grounds, and throw away it into a place other than a designated place.

Nevertheless, the defendant A from January 18, 2015 to the same year.

2. Until December 28, 200, he disposed of waste (waste soil and stone) approximately 29,000 tons from a construction site of the J breakwater in the area where the J breakwater was established in the area where the G breakwater was located in the area where the G breakwater was located in the area where the Busan, which was not designated as an speculation site of the dredging soil, without permission.

2) Defendant B, who is his employee, committed a violation as described in paragraph (1) with respect to the above Defendant’s business.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendants’ act of dumping dredging land into a new dredging land with dredging land constitutes a harbor to which Article 22 of the Harbor Act applies, while the Defendants’ act of dumping dredging land into a new dredging land with dredging land without consultation with the office of the Busan Regional Fisheries Administration and the Busan Regional Fisheries Office without permission is the place where the dredging soil was designated under Article 22 subparag. 3 of the Harbor Act.

arrow