(a) Whether old buildings are wastes such as bricks and brick sculptures, etc. which are industrial wastes (affirmative);

(b) Whether the lower court’s measure is appropriate without accurately specifying the emission quantity of the processed building materials, although it recognizes that a public prosecution offense for treating industrial wastes as a business without permission is found to have been committed more than 50 kilograms a day (affirmative)

(c) Whether an act of reclaiming a river into industrial wastes and creating a high water site constitutes an act of dumping industrial wastes into public waters without justifiable grounds under the Environmental Preservation Act (affirmative);

(a) Wastes of old buildings, such as brick sculptures, stone sculptures, sunlighting, brick sculptures, mixed trawing, trawing, wooden sculptures, vinyl sculptures, and stitrop sculptures, are clear that they are waste materials of buildings which are industrial wastes;

B. Even if the Defendants’ 80% of the waste materials of a building that were processed by the Defendants were mixed with private soil, since the volume of waste materials of a building that were handled by the Defendants as a business exceeds an average of 50 kilograms per day, the Defendants constitute a person who operates an industrial waste treatment business without obtaining permission under Article 43(1)6 of the Wastes Control Act, and thus, the lower court did not accurately specify the volume of waste materials of a building that were handled by the Defendants, and therefore, did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the misconception of facts or the Wastes Control Act.

C. Even if the Defendants buried a river into industrial wastes and created a high water site, so long as they performed an act of dumping industrial wastes into public waters without any justifiable reason, it constitutes “a person who violates the provisions of Article 37(1)” under subparagraph 5 of Article 68 of the Environmental Conservation Act.

(b)Article 2 of the Wastes Control Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, Articles 24(1) and 43(1)(c) of the Wastes Control Act, Article 37(1) of the Environmental Preservation Act;

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee J-woo et al.

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No306 delivered on May 16, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by defense counsel

From March 14, 1989 to July 14, 1989, the first instance court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in the case where the Defendants, in collaboration with the Nonindicted Party, installed not only a private house but also a long building in the public waters of the Dong-gu, Gyeonggi-do, which is an inorganic logistics industry waste, and provided that the building waste materials generated from the neighboring constructors who are engaged in the construction business shall be 10,000 square meters per day and shall be discarded to the above storage space of the public waters with an average of 2,00 tons per day. The court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in the case where the Defendants engaged in the business of disposing of industrial wastes by reclaiming brut oil, etc., and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court was insufficient to find that the Defendants violated the rules of evidence by comparing not only the private house but also the old building in the public waters of the Dong-gu, Gyeonggi-do, and that there was no error in the law of removal or destruction of the building, etc., such as an average building waste removal or plastic, etc.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

According to the former part of Article 24(1), Article 43(1)6, Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Wastes Control Act, and Article 2(1)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 2(1)2(b)(5) of the same Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, waste materials generated from the removal of an individual house do not constitute an industrial waste under the former part of Article 24(1) of the same Act. However, even if the defendants were mixed with private soil of 80% during the removal of a building in which they were processed, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the disposal of industrial waste under the former part of Article 24(1)6 of the same Act or by misapprehending the legal principles on the disposal of industrial waste under Article 43(1)6 of the same Act without obtaining permission under the former part of Article 24(1) of the same Act. Thus, the defendants did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles on the disposal of industrial waste under Article 43(1)6 of the same Act.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

In theory, even if the defendants buried a river into industrial wastes and created a high water site, as long as the defendants performed an act of dumping industrial wastes into public waters without any justifiable reason as the court below duly found the facts, it constitutes "a person who violated the provisions of Article 37 (1)" under Article 68 (5) of the Environmental Preservation Act. Thus, the judgment below did not err in finding facts as in theory or in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the Environmental Preservation Act. Thus, there is no reason to discuss.

4. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)