Whether a person in charge of the disposal of waste home appliances can be punished for a violation of Article 60 subparagraph 1 or Article 12 of the Wastes Control Act in cases where he/she entrusts the disposal of waste home appliances to a waste intermediate disposal business operator who is not permitted to dispose of waste home appliances by means of pulverization, incineration, etc.

Even if the Defendants entrusted the disposal of waste home appliances to a person who has not obtained permission for intermediate waste disposal business from the authorities, and had such person treat them by means of crushing, incineration, etc., the Defendants cannot be punished by applying Articles 60 subparagraph 1 and 12 of the Wastes Control Act unless it is recognized that the waste home appliances, which are domestic wastes, have not been disposed of by the methods

The Wastes Control Act, Articles 4, 5, 12, 15(1), 24, 25, 26(1), 44-2, 44-3, and 60 of the Wastes Control Act, Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act, Article 6(1) [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Soh Hong-kn et al.

Busan District Court Decision 96 High Court Decision 6258 Decided February 20, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty

1. The summary of Article 1 of the Reasons for Appeal by the Defendants and their defense counsel is that the waste home appliances of this case fall under domestic wastes for which it is not necessary to have a disposal business operator who has obtained permission for intermediate waste disposal business under the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter “Act”), and the Defendants are generated from this case in the course of recovering and disposing of the above waste home appliances in accordance with relevant provisions, such as Article 4-3 of the Act, and Articles 60 subparagraph 1 and 12 of the Act applied by the court below violates the principle of no punishment without the law by re-electioning the waste disposal standards, etc. to Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, which is not the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the above Article. The summary of the second point is unfair because the court below's punishment against

2. The summary of the facts charged of this case found guilty by the court below is as follows: Defendant 1, the Director of the Distribution Center (name omitted), and Defendant 2, the Director of the Busan Electronic Logistics Center, through each logistics center, competent agency, etc., are responsible for the disposal of waste home appliances such as laundry and laundry, etc., while selling new products to consumers through each logistics center, competent agency, etc.; Defendant 1, if collected domestic wastes by means of crushing, incineration, etc., must be entrusted to a waste disposal business entity, etc. who obtained permission for intermediate disposal of wastes by himself/herself, or by an authority for interim disposal of such collected domestic wastes, but the above disposal costs should be reduced even if the above disposal costs were to be charged to Defendant 1, 2, and the above disposal costs were to be charged to Defendant 1, 3,000 won per 1,000 won per 19,000 won per 2,000 won per 9,000 won per 19,000.

3. Therefore, Article 12 of the Act provides that any person who intends to collect, transport, store, or dispose of wastes (hereinafter referred to as "treatment") shall do so according to the standards and methods prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 6 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that such person shall dispose of wastes in accordance with specific standards and methods prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment so as to minimize environmental pollution in the course of disposing of wastes. Article 6 (1) [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "household wastes shall be disposed of by himself/herself in accordance with Article 15 (1) of the Act or by Article 4 or 5 of the Act; waste disposal business operators under Article 26 (1) of the Act (limited to waste disposal business operators for domestic wastes) or waste disposal business operators under Article 44-2 (1) of the Act shall be subject to the disposal of wastes; Article 6 (1) of the Act provides that "the owner, occupant, or waste discharger shall separately entrust the disposal of wastes to the State or local government in accordance with Article 4 of the Act."

According to the above provisions and records, any person who intends to dispose of wastes shall comply with the above standards and shall be punished if such person violates the above provisions (Article 60 subparagraph 1 and Article 12 of the Act), but the above provisions of the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule stipulate that the disposal standards of domestic wastes by himself/herself shall be disposed of at the waste disposal facilities operated by local governments, etc. under the provisions of Article 15 (1), 4 or 5, 26 (1) or 44-2 (1) of the Act, and specifically do not stipulate that the disposal of domestic wastes such as the waste of this case shall be carried out by any method of disposal of the above disposal facilities by any person who does not request the disposal business operator or the reported recycling business operator to dispose of the domestic wastes of this case under the provisions of Article 6 of the Act before the disposal of the domestic wastes of this case, and the above provisions of Article 6 of the Act shall be applied to those who do not request the disposal business operator or the disposal business operator of domestic wastes of this case without permission under the provisions of Article 10 of the Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that applied Articles 60 subparagraph 1 and 12 of the Act to the defendants on the premise that the defendants did not process the products of this case in a manner prescribed by the law in entrusting the disposal of the products of this case.

4. If so, the judgment of the court below is erroneous, or misunderstanding the legal principles under the Wastes Control Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus it is no longer maintained. Thus, the party members are reversed the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act,

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as seen above, and since the facts charged in this case are not a crime or there is no proof of a crime, each of the defendants shall be acquitted in accordance with Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Park Chang-tae (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-ho Kim