[1] The meaning of "minimum incineration capacity" under the former Clean Air Conservation Act, and whether its concept is unclear as there is no specific provision on the calculation method (negative)

[2] In a case where a producer, upon receiving an order from an interim disposal business operator, reported to install a small capacity incineration path at the competent agency under consultation with the interim disposal business operator in order to avoid installation standards necessary for a large capacity incineration facility in manufacturing and installing a incineration path, and, in fact, made a report to the said interim disposal business operator, and made it more than twice the capacity incineration and operated by manufacturing and installing a larger capacity, the case recognizing a public collusion relationship with the criminal intent of violating the Clean Air Conservation Act

[1] According to the former Clean Air Conservation Act, the term “minimum incineration capacity” means the maximum incineration capacity, and the maximum incineration capacity means the maximum incineration capacity of specific wastes that can be incinerated per unit hour. In this case, even though there is no statutory provision regarding the calculation method of the maximum incineration capacity, considering the legislative technological limit due to the diversity of the type of incineration facilities and operating methods, and the legislative necessity of the legislation on incineration facilities, the meaning of the maximum incineration capacity is a concept that can be seen by ordinary statutory interpretation if a person has sound common sense and ordinary legal sentiments with respect to the relevant industries, such as design, manufacture, and operation of incineration facilities.

[2] In a case where a producer, upon receiving an order from an interim waste disposal business operator, manufactured and installed an incineration channel with a capacity of at least two times more than the incineration capacity reported to the competent agency in consultation with the interim disposal business operator in order to avoid installation standards necessary for incineration facilities with a large incineration capacity while manufacturing and installing an incineration channel, the case holding that the crime of violating the Clean Air Conservation Act and the conspiracy relation are acknowledged

[1] Article 10(1) of the former Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 6826 of Dec. 26, 2002) (see current Article 23(1)), Article 5 [Attachment 3] subparag. 14(c) [see current Article 5 [Attachment 3-2] subparag. 14(c)] and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 6826 of Dec. 26, 2002), Article 5-2 subparag. 1 (see current Article 90 subparag. 1) of the former Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance No. 136 of Jan. 4, 2003), Article 5 [Attachment 3] subparag. 14(c) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment of Jan. 4, 2003]

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003No11070 Delivered on December 23, 2004

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof of facts charged lies in the prosecutor, and the probative value of evidence to be found guilty should bring about convictions to the extent that a reasonable doubt is excluded from a reasonable doubt as a result of an objective and reasonable evaluation of evidence in accordance with logical and empirical rules. However, the term “reasonable doubt” refers not to all questions and irregularities, but to the reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that are inconsistent with facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do974, Jul. 25, 1997, etc.).

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, while installing an incineration way with a real incineration capacity exceeding 200 km/h, falsely reported its capacity to 100 km/h. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to deem that the capacity of the incineration way installed by the Defendant exceeds 200 km/h.

3. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

가. 원심판결 이유 및 기록에 의하면, 건설폐기물중간처리업체가 소각시설을 설치함에 있어 소각용량 100kg/h 이상 200kg/h 미만의 소각시설의 경우에는 자체 소각처리할 수 있도록 허가를 받고 방지시설로써 원심력집진시설만 갖추면 되는 데 비하여{ 폐기물관리법 제26조 , 동법 시행규칙 [별표 6] 제2호 (나)목 참조}, 소각용량 200kg/h 이상의 소각시설을 설치할 경우에는 압력측정계, 구조, 연소실 온도, 소각재의 강열감량 등 방지시설의 설치기준이 엄격하고 까다롭기 때문에{동법 시행규칙 [별표 7] 참조} 방지시설을 갖추기 위한 비용이 훨씬 많이 드는 점, 이러한 점을 알고 있는 피고인은 여주환경 주식회사(이하 ‘여주환경’이라 한다)에 소각로를 판매하기 위하여 그 대표이사 공소외 1 및 관리부장 공소외 2에게 ‘소각로 용량이 시간당 소각능력 200kg을 초과하면 방지시설 설치비용이 2억 원 이상 들고 점검도 까다롭다. 시간당 소각능력 100㎏으로 신고해야 용량검사에서 쉽게 통과된다’는 취지의 말과 함께 축소 신고하는 방법까지 알려준 다음 공소외 2로부터 설치신고를 대행해 줄 것을 부탁받고 자신이 제작하여 설치할 소각로(이하 ‘이 사건 소각로’라 한다)의 용량이 100kg/h인 것처럼 신고한 사실, 피고인은 여주환경으로부터 소각로를 시간당 소각능력 100㎏으로 하여 폐기물처리업의 허가를 받되 소각로 자체는 최대한 크게 제작해달라는 부탁에 따라 소각로 본체를 크게 하여 2001. 9.경 이 사건 소각로를 제작하여 설치한 사실, 서울지방검찰청 환경사범 단속반은 여주환경에 대하여 ‘200kg/h 미만의 소형 소각로로 설치신고를 하고서는 이를 훨씬 초과하는 용량을 소각하여 조업함으로써, 대기오염을 유발하고 있다’는 제보를 접하고 2002. 10. 9. 단속에 임하여 현장에서 ‘매일 11시간씩 조업을 하고 있는데, 1일 총 12,000kg 정도를 소각하므로 시간당 약 1,090kg을 소각하는 셈이다’는 취지의 공소외 1, 2의 위반확인서, 여주환경 종업원 공소외 3의 진술서를 교부받은 사실, 공소외 2는 제1심법정에서 소각물의 상태가 좋으면 하루(8시간)에 6,000㎏(시간당 750㎏) 내지 8,000㎏(시간당 1,000㎏) 정도는 소각할 수 있었다고 증언한 사실, 피고인 운영의 오성환경개발 제품목록에 나와 있는 소각로들의 사양 중 시간당 소각용량이 100kg에서 120kg인 소각로(제품명 SHC-1000) 본체의 화상면적이 1.08㎡, 화상용적이 2.40㎥, 집진시설(Cyclone)의 외형치수가 Ø960 × 2,825H이고, 시간당 소각용량이 150kg에서 170kg인 소각로(제품명 SHC-1500) 본체의 화상면적이 1.35㎡, 화상용적이 3.0㎥, 집진시설의 외형치수가 Ø1,100 × 3,000H임에 비하여, 이 사건 소각로의 본체는 화상면적이 3.72㎡, 화상용적이 6.32㎥, 집진시설의 외형치수가 Ø1,220 × 3,550H로서 위 두 가지 사양의 제품에 비하여 본체의 규모는 2~3배 정도로 크며, 집진시설의 규모도 월등히 큰 사실, 서울지방검찰청 합동단속반에 편성되어 환경부 직원과 함께 이 사건 소각로를 점검한 공소외 4(한국산업폐기물처리공제조합에서 소각로 성능검사 업무를 담당하고 있다)는 검찰에서 ‘이 사건 소각로의 이론상 소각용량은 화상용적에 의할 경우 283kg/h{=(화상용적 6.324㎥× 열부하 280,000 Kcal/㎥·h)/저위발열량 6,251.4 Kcal/Kg}, 화상면적에 의할 경우 446kg/h(=화상면적 3.72㎡× 화상부하량 120Kg/㎡Hr)이다’고 진술하였는바(수사기록 87쪽), 위 진술 및 위 단속 당시 이 사건 소각로의 위와 같은 실제 소각용량(약 1,090kg/h)에 의하면 이 사건 소각로의 소각용량은 200kg/h를 초과하는 점, 폐기물 중간처리업자는 중간처리된 폐기물을 다시 최종처리업체에 보내서 처리해야 하므로 최종처리 비용을 줄이기 위해서는 폐기물을 재(회)로 만들어 폐기물의 중량과 부피를 최소한으로 줄여야만 하기 때문에 일정한 용량의 소각로에 투입된 폐기물이 완전연소 되지 않은 상태에서 또 다른 폐기물을 소각로에 추가적으로 투입하는 등의 방법으로 소각량을 무한정으로 늘릴 수는 없는 점, 위 단속 당시 여주환경의 소각 후 잔재물은 거의 재(회)의 상태로서 양호하게 보관되어 있었던 점 등을 알 수 있다.

B. The meaning of the maximum incineration capacity applicable in filing a report on the capacity of the incineration facility means the maximum incineration capacity of the relevant incineration facility, and the maximum incineration capacity means the maximum incineration capacity of the relevant incineration facility per unit hour. [See attached Table 3] Article 10(1) of the former Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 6826, Dec. 26, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 5 [Attachment 3] [Attachment 14(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of Ministry of Environment No. 136, Jan. 4, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply], and Article 17 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act]. In this case, the specific calculation method of the maximum incineration capacity is not stipulated in the law, but it can be seen that a person who has a sound sense of law and appraisal of the meaning of the relevant incineration facility, such as the design, manufacturing and operation of the incineration facility, and the legislative necessity of the law on the incineration facility.

C. In accordance with the court below's findings, the theoretical incineration capacity of the instant incineration is 283km/h in case of video-use, 446km/h in case of video-use, and approximately 1,090km/h in case of actual incineration capacity. Thus, even according to the most favorable value for the defendant, it can be sufficiently recognized that the capacity exceeds 200km/h in case of the instant incineration.

Furthermore, in order to avoid such a situation with a well-known fact that the Defendant, as a producer, should be manufactured and managed by strict standards in the case of incineration of at least 200 km/h, and in consultation with Nonindicted Party 1 and 2, in the report, the Defendant, in consultation with Nonindicted Party 1 and 2, entered the incineration capacity of the instant incineration in 10 km/h, but actually manufactured the incineration capacity of 183 km/h, which is larger than that of 183 km/h, and installed and operated in the state environment, it is difficult to deny the criminal intent and public relation with Nonindicted Party 1, etc. with regard to the facts charged in this case.

4. If so, the judgment of the court below that there is no proof of a crime against the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evaluation of probative value of evidence by making a judgment contrary to the rules of experience and logic, or by misunderstanding facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)