[1] Whether construction waste "construction waste" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act is included only in construction waste enumerated in [Attachment 1] of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (affirmative)

[2] A case where construction waste generated or discharged by mixing is excluded from those subject to the classification collection and transportation under Article 13(1) of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act / [2] Articles 13(1) and 63 subparag. 1 of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act, Article 9(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act, Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act (see current Article 5(2))

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Ahn Jae-kin

Gwangju District Court Decision 2006No1826 Decided February 14, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 7782 of Dec. 29, 2005 for the facts charged in the case of the 2006 Highest 1053 cases, and Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Construction Waste Recycling Act for the facts charged in the case of the 2006 Highest 1853 cases, referred to as "construction waste" means at least five tons of waste generated in the construction site from the commencement to the completion of construction due to construction works falling under subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the kind of construction waste is listed in the attached Table 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act only 14. Construction waste referred to in this Act includes not only the wastes directly or indirectly generated in the construction process, but also all the wastes generated in relation to the construction work from the commencement to the completion of construction work, or even if it is generated at the construction site, it does not constitute construction waste under the above Act and subordinate statutes.

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty on the grounds that it is difficult to readily conclude the entire waste of this case as construction waste, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove a crime. In light of the records, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable in accordance with the above legal

Meanwhile, Article 13(1)1(a) of the Construction Waste Recycling Act provides that any person shall comply with the standards for disposal determined by Presidential Decree in discharging, collecting, transporting, storing, and interim disposal of construction waste. Article 9(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Waste Recycling Act provides that construction waste shall be discharged, collected, transported, and stored by classifying into waste concrete, waste asphalt concrete, waste wood, waste synthetic resin, waste metal, etc., the possibility of incineration, and where construction waste is generated or discharged by mixing at least two kinds of construction waste at the time of the occurrence of construction waste (hereinafter “mix construction waste”), and Article 5(1) [Attachment 1] 3-A of the Enforcement Rule of the Construction Waste Recycling Act provides that a mixture of construction waste shall be disposed of by dividing and sorting it to the maximum extent possible during the interim disposal process. According to the above provision, where it is considerably difficult to separate and separate construction waste by ordinary methods due to mixing with construction waste, etc., it shall be excluded from the subject of classification and transportation under the above provision.

The court below determined that the construction waste of this case does not fall under the object of collection and transport of construction waste of this case, on the ground that it is reasonable in light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, and that the construction waste of this case does not fall under the object of collection and transport of construction waste of this case, on the ground that it is highly easy to distinguish the waste of this case from the waste of this case and its photographing results, etc., and that the two industries collect and transport waste of this case are relatively easy to distinguish and transport waste of this case, and all kinds of waste of this case except them are able to separate and select with earth and sand in the process of stabilization, and it is considerably difficult to distinguish and select construction waste of this case with earth and sand of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)