logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.11.08 2018노1653
폐기물관리법위반
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts charged in the case of 2016 and 1946, pursuant to Article 25(9) of the former Waste Management Act (amended by Act No. 13038, Jan. 20, 2015; Act No. 13038, Jan. 21, 2016); and Article 31(1)4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 637, Jan. 21, 2016), a waste recycling business entity shall comply with the period of waste storage under the said provision, regardless of either interim or final stage, or a comprehensive recycling business. As such, insofar as the Defendant’s materials stored after being in his/her place of business are food wastes, it shall be subject to punishment under the said Act even if they are not “original wastes”.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that there was no proof as to the remaining facts charged, which found that the wastes subject to compliance with the storage period under the above Acts and subordinate statutes constituted only “original wastes” at the pre-stage stage of recycling.

B. With respect to the facts charged in the case of 2017, the Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act was amended and implemented on March 3, 2015 by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment Article 595, and food wastes were prescribed as separate classification items. However, this was added as one classification item within the workplace wastes, and the “food pest” had already been prescribed in the former Waste Management Act, etc., and this was clearly distinguishable from “agricultural and fishery industrial waste” and “biological residues”.

Therefore, as long as the Defendants obtained permission for a comprehensive recycling business of wastes containing business targets as food wastes on July 18, 2005, the Defendants are unable to handle wastes according to the circumstances surrounding the nature of the wastes other than food.

must be viewed.

On March 3, 2015.

arrow