Whether a person who has obtained permission for interim waste disposal business does not dispose of wastes in the field of specialized disposal but only disposes of wastes, one of the intermediate disposal methods, constitutes a case where he/she operates a waste disposal business without permission under Article 59 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act (negative)

The Defendant, who obtained permission for interim waste disposal business, did not dispose of the wastes in the field of specialized disposal, but only incinerated as one of the intermediate disposal methods, cannot be viewed as a case where he operated the waste disposal business without obtaining permission as prescribed in Article 59 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act.

Article 26 (3) and Article 59 (1) of the Wastes Control Act

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 2003No794 delivered on September 17, 2003

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that “the Defendant engaged in a waste treatment business by collecting and disposing of approximately 140t wastes from the Defendant’s place of business located in a flapsed on the surface of Kimhae-si from January 20, 200 to March 27 of the same year without permission of the competent government office,” under the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the Enforcement Rule thereof, a person who intends to operate a waste treatment business for any wastes other than designated wastes shall obtain permission from the Mayor/Do Governor (Article 26(3) of the Act), and shall meet the standards for certain facilities, equipment, and technical capacity (Article 17 [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, and determined otherwise in accordance with the specialized field of incineration, and that the Defendant’s act of collecting and treating wastes from more than 1 type of measurement facilities and from 20 pulverizing pollutants at all by using the glapsing market without permission for incineration and treatment facilities at least 20.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the records, the defendant, on January 20, 200, has a specialized waste treatment business (specialized waste treatment business), (2) waste disposal business (PE, PVC, rubber rap, (3) waste disposal facilities, equipment: 30HP 1, 35HH 1, 80 m/hr, etc., and Article 26 (3) of the Act provides that "the person who has received notification of conformity pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2) shall have the capacity to dispose of wastes in accordance with the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment; 6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "this shall not apply where he/she intends to modify any of the important matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment among the permitted matters, he/she shall have a specialized waste treatment business operator to whom he/she should have the capacity to dispose of wastes in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment; 6)."

Nevertheless, the court below, on the contrary of its opinion, concluded that the remaining defendant's act of disposing of the incineration without being engaged in recycling, which is a specialized treatment area designated in obtaining permission for the waste disposal business, constitutes Article 59 subparagraph 1 of the Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Wastes Control Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Meanwhile, the Defendant did not submit the grounds of appeal on the remainder of the violation of the Wastes Control Act except for the violation of the Wastes Control Act, among the violation of each of the instant Wastes Control Act, which the lower court found guilty. However, the lower court rendered a single sentence against the Defendant on the ground that the violation of each of the instant Wastes Control Act committed concurrent crimes. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment

4. 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 Park Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)