logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2016.04.28 2015고정464
폐기물관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 80,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Where a person intends to operate a waste treatment business, he/she shall obtain permission from the competent authority with facilities in accordance with the criteria prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, notwithstanding the fact that he/she has obtained permission from the head of the competent authority, the defendant shall obtain such permission without obtaining permission.

3. By the end of 31.3, in operating the place of business, “D” in Pyeongtaek-si, the said place of business carried out an intermediate recycling business of wastes, such as separating and storing 300 km of waste home products from the scrap metal.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the witness F in the third public trial records;

1. Application of voluntary statements, business registration certificates, field photographs and statutes;

1. The act of the Defendant’s separation of scrap metal, scrapter, etc. by demolishing and cutting all of his/her prior wastes, Article 64 subparag. 1 and Article 25 subparag. 3 of the Preliminary Waste Management Act regarding criminal facts, Article 64 subparag. 1 and Article 25(3) of the Preliminary Waste Management Act, and the selection of a fine [Judgment as to whether it constitutes an interim recycling business requiring permission]

Article 25(5)5 of the Waste Management Act provides for an interim recycling business as one of the waste disposal businesses requiring permission from the competent authorities for activities, and defines the interim recycling business as “a business that manufactures intermediately processed wastes with waste recycling facilities”.

A defense counsel does not fall under this because the defendant did not have a waste recycling facility.

The argument is asserted.

However, the above provision should be interpreted to mean that it is the duty of a person who engages in recycling wastes and is subject to the conditions of permission, and it cannot be interpreted to mean that permission is not necessary for a person who is not equipped with the facility even though he/she performs recycling activities.

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

arrow