logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.09.22 2017고정1206
폐기물관리법위반
Text

1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 4,000,000 won;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Any person who intends to dispose of wastes shall, in principle, dispose of wastes at a waste disposal facility or recycling facility in accordance with the standards and methods prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Waste Management Act, and shall not reclaim wastes in violation of this provision. Although there is an act prohibited under the applicable Act and subordinate statutes stating that “no person shall reclaim or incinerate wastes at a place other than the waste disposal facility permitted, approved, or reported,” this is not a content of Article 13(1) of the Waste Management Act applied to the instant crime, but it appears that the content of Article 8(2) of the Wastes Management Act is erroneous.

1. On September 2016, the Defendant: (a) filed a request with D, an engineer, to remove a warehouse built of asbestos splate roof and concrete block structure, and buried waste asbestos slate equivalent to 120 kilograms, which is waste wastes, on the ground that a warehouse building left alone in the old dwelling area of Young-gun B, Nam-gun, other than waste disposal facilities or recycling facilities, is not good for the safety of residents; (b) the Defendant removed a warehouse built of an asbestos splate roof and concrete block structure by using sprinkers; and (c) buried waste asbestos slate equivalent to 120 kilograms.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with D to reclaim asbestos sludge which is a waste.

2. On October 2016, 2016, the Defendant: (a) filed a request with E, an engineer of poke at the above place; (b) removed toilets built of cement block using pokes; and (c) buried 3.8 tons, such as stone, wood, cement sculptures, etc., as waste, by digging out the ground at the same place.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with E to reclaim cement sculptures, which is a waste.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police against E or D;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written administrative disposition order, a report on waste discharge and disposal performance, and a written confirmation for collection and transport of wastes;

1. Relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

arrow