logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.02.16 2015노2815
폐기물관리법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the fact: There was no error of ordering reclamation, and only the Defendant’s place of business intended to move wastes to another place of business.

2) Improper sentencing: The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the legal principles, misunderstanding of the legal principles: Inorganic sludge's waste map, and there was no omission in reclamation.

2) Improper sentencing: The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 3,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake, the fact that the Defendant ordered the Defendant B, like the facts charged, to reclaim inorganic sludge, is sufficiently recognized.

Defendant

A operated a G Co., Ltd., a corporation that runs aggregate extraction business.

G obtained permission for temporary use (from December 9, 2010 to December 9, 2013) of the inorganic sludge generated during the process of extracting aggregate from G Co., Ltd. to E farmland in Ycheon-si.

Defendant

A was ordered to restore the above E land to its original condition after the period of permission for temporary use expires.

Defendant

B Upon the request of the Defendant A, the inorganic sludge was transferred to F land adjacent to the land.

In the process, equipment such as dump trucks, sump trucks, and sumpers were mobilized, and all equipment costs were borne by Defendant A.

In February 2014, the public official in charge was present at the above site, and there was a large pool of F land, and he stored in the next place the inorganic sludge as waste.

Accordingly, the public official in charge of the public official stated that Defendant B should not reclaim wastes in the pool.

After that, on June 17, 2014 and June 19, 2014, the public official in charge of official in charge ordered that the part of the Gu be filled with, and that the part of the Gu be filled with was filled with, so that the part of the Gu be filled with, and that there was an inorganic error filled in that part.

F Land:

arrow