The case holding that a water treatment chemical under Article 3 subparagraph 4 of the Food Water Management Act, where an importer of active carbon imported and supplied to a water treatment manufacturer, shall not be deemed to be a water treatment chemical under Article 3 subparagraph 4 of the Food Water Management Act, on which an import declaration is required, since it is merely limited to the raw materials of water treatment chemicals.

Considering the fact that powder active carbon imported by an importer of active carbon can be used for various purposes, such as water treatment chemicals through their respective processes as well as air treatment chemicals, and that powder active carbon produced by the importer to a water treatment chemical manufacturer through the process, such as screening, mixing, water and powder treatment, re- packing, etc., the case holding that the powder active carbon imported by the importer and supplied by the importer to a water treatment chemical manufacturer is not deemed a water treatment chemical under Article 3 subparagraph 4 of the Food and Drug Management Act, since it is merely limited to the raw materials of water treatment chemicals imported and supplied by the importer to the water treatment chemical manufacturer, and thus, it does not constitute a water treatment chemical under which the import declaration obligation is imposed.

Article 3 subparag. 4, Article 23(1), and Article 49 subparag. 9 of the Management of Drinking Water Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul High Court Decision 2005No1126 delivered on December 20, 2005

All the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: “Defendant 1, who intends to import water treatment chemicals, etc., without reporting to the authorities, without reporting to the authorities, and around April 2004, in order to supply it to the Nonindicted Co., Ltd., Defendant 1, a corporation in Guro-gu Seoul, the main text of which is Defendant 1’s water treatment chemicals supplied to the nationwide water purification plant, and to supply it to the non-indicted Co., Ltd., a corporation that manufactures active coal at the place of business located in Guro-gu, Seoul, with an amount equivalent to KRW 92,818,00,00 in China, and around that time from that time until October 2004, the total of KRW 1,118,200 in Korea’s 471,684,200,000 in Korea, and Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), without reporting to the authorities by Defendant 1, the representative director of Defendant Company’s company, the revenue amount of KRW 11,11,18184,7860.

2. The judgment of the court below

The court below, based on the adopted evidence, found the defendant company guilty on March 18, 200 of the crime of this case as the non-indicted 1 corporation's active coal supply quantity. The non-indicted 1 corporation participated in the competitive bidding on March 18, 200 to be awarded a contract for powder 1,000t of the same month and reached the import of this case. The defendant 1 received most active coal supply at the Public Procurement Service. The non-indicted 1 was aware of the fact that the non-indicted corporation, as a manufacturer of water treatment chemicals, supplied all active coal to the Public Procurement Service and purchased active coal in this case for this purpose. The non-indicted 2 corporation's demand for active coal supply by the non-indicted 1 corporation was not the most core size of the public notice of the Ministry of Environment for active coal supply, and it was not the supply of active coal in this case to the non-indicted 1 corporation, which is the non-indicted 1 corporation's supply of active coal in conformity with the above non-indicted 1 corporation's standard for active coal supply.

3. The judgment of this Court

However, the above decision of the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

According to the records, from 2001 to 2004, Defendant Company imported approximately 7,500 tons of active carbon (including active carbon of coal field and plant field) from land, such as China, Thailand, and Indonesia, and offered them to 10 domestic enterprises, including Nonindicted Incorporated Corporation. Active carbon is used for various purposes, such as industrial, air treatment for simple organic products smoking, wastewater treatment, water treatment, etc. It is only Nonindicted Incorporated Corporation, which used active carbon in the supply company supplied by Defendant Company as water treatment agents. Since it was all 5% of the water content in domestic products supplied by Defendant Company, the non-indicted Company failed to meet the necessary water ratio for water treatment, and some active carbon does not meet the standard for water treatment agents, and if it was re-processed with active dust treatment again, it does not meet the standard for water treatment agents that can be used as active carbon again by mixing it with active dust treatment agents, and if it is re-processed with active dust treatment agents that can be used as active carbon again.

Nevertheless, the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, judged that the powder powder of this case constitutes a water treatment chemical under the law. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of water treatment chemical under the law, and it has affected the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below 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 Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)