logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.11.24 2017노1430
수질및수생태계보전에관한법률위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding 1) The Act on the Conservation of Water Quality and Aquatic Organisms (hereinafter “Water Quality Ecosystem Act”) does not have a clear definition of “discharge,” and there is room to be interpreted as being included in the “discharge” of water pollutants even in the case of “taking” to treat wastewater generated from a small machine as the Defendants. Thus, it violates the principle of clarity inasmuch as it is likely to be included in the “discharge” of water pollutants.

2) The Water Quality Ecosystem Act delegates to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment with respect to wastewater discharge facilities, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the amount of “one-day maximum amount of wastewater” of the storage facilities attached to the facilities shall be calculated in the case of a machine that reuses water in circulation by deviating from the scope of delegation. Thus, the above Enforcement Rule of the Act deviates from the scope of delegation or violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation.

3) The Defendants did not know in the instant case that, until the examination result of water quality testing, metal ingredients can be melted by melting in diversh oil, the Defendants were unable to obtain any explanation or notification from administrative agencies during the process of moving a factory in an industrial complex.

Therefore, there is a justifiable reason to believe that the Defendants did not have the intention to violate the law and did not constitute a crime.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendants asserted the same purport at the lower court.

As to this, the court below did not have a specific definition provision regarding the meaning of "discharge" with a somewhat comprehensive and broad definition provision regarding "discharge facilities of wastewater" under the Water Quality Ecosystem Act.

The meaning and scope of "discharge facilities of wastewater" under the above Act is related to the prior meaning of "discharge", the legislative purpose and purpose of the Water Quality Ecosystem Act.

arrow