beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged and summary of the prosecutor's appeal
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case which the court below acquitted is as follows.
Defendant
A is the manager of the harmful chemical substance in charge of environmental safety of B, and when any person loads or removes a hazardous chemical into or out of a vehicle, or moves a hazardous chemical handling facility to another hazardous chemical handling facility, he/she does not comply with the guidelines for handling hazardous chemical substances, such as having the manager of the hazardous chemical, participate in the process of handling the hazardous chemical. However, around 09:41 on March 9, 2015, around B, he/she failed to comply with the guidelines for handling hazardous chemical substances, which is a hazardous chemical substance stored in a storage tank in B, F25 tons tank lorri vehicle. The Defendant B corporation, as its employee, committed the above violation of the guidelines for handling hazardous chemical substances.
B. Summary of the Prosecutor’s appeal is as follows.
In light of the legislative purpose of the Chemicals Control Act to prevent environmental hazards and properly control chemicals, the above Act shall be interpreted to ensure that there is no gap in the management of chemicals.
Accordingly, the defendant A has the status of a hazardous chemical manager under the current Chemicals Control Act before the defendant B corporation appoints a new hazardous chemical manager by December 31, 2015, which is the grace period.
Therefore, on March 9, 2015, the Defendant, as a hazardous chemical manager, did not participate in the site where hazardous chemicals are handled as stated in the instant facts charged, constitutes a violation of the Toxic Chemicals Control Act. However, the lower court rendered a judgment of innocence on the premise that the Defendant does not constitute a hazardous chemical manager. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of the Chemicals Control Act, which affected