beta
Text
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendants committed a violation of the Waste Management Act, since they repeated the act of either inputting or falsely inputting the waste disposal information.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s judgment: (a) prior to the amendment by Act No. 12321, Jan. 21, 2014;
(B) The Defendants’ act of inputting false information on waste treatment under Article 66 subparag. 5 is punished by punishment (Article 66 subparag. 5). On the other hand, Article 68 subparag. 3 provides that the Defendants’ act of inputting false information on waste treatment shall be subject to a fine for negligence (Article 68 subparag. 3-3). As to which act of not inputting accurate information on the electronic information processing system is subject to a certain act of not inputting accurate information on the electronic information processing system as in the instant case, it is interpreted that there is no choice to reasonably interpret in accordance with the meaning and purpose of the text and the law. In light of the circumstances that the Defendants’ act, such as the facts charged, does not constitute an act of not an act of inputting false information on waste treatment, but an act of inputting the predicted information on the other hand, which is a fixed-type type type method, while using a multiple alternative method due to the restriction on the use of the statutory information on waste treatment information, and then processing
The decision was determined.
B. On the other hand, there is no distinction between the act of inputting the information on the delivery and receipt of wastes in the former Waste Management Act and the act of inputting the information on the electronic information processing program in an incorrect manner as a penalty or an administrative fine, and thus, it should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with the legislative purpose, text, etc. of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes comprehensively (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4150, Dec. 8, 2005). Thus, even if the waste disposal amount was not entered within the statutory period or was entered differently from the actual one, it cannot be concluded that it is false in light of all the circumstances, and it is close to the false entry.