logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.04.01 2014노2619
수질및수생태계보전에관한법률위반
Text

The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In order to constitute “waste” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Wastes Control Act, both of the following requirements are satisfied: ① “waste, burning materials, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste eggs, animal carcasses, etc.” and ② “material which has become unnecessary for human activities or business activities.”

In order to constitute “waste, burning material, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste egg, waste egg, animal carcass, etc.” among these, the degree of contamination should be limited to the degree of serious pollution. However, it is difficult to view that the “taking and taking over” discharged by the Defendants (hereinafter “taking and taking over”) is serious.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the charges solely on the ground that the above transfer and acquisition is “material unnecessary for business activities” is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Wastes Control Act defines wastes as “waste, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, dead body of an animal, etc., which has become unnecessary for people’s living or business activities.” In light of the purport of the aforementioned Act, in order to strictly regulate the discharge of wastes that may have a significant impact on the natural and living environment, thereby promoting the preservation of the environment and the qualitative improvement of people’s lives, such substances as above discharged from a workplace shall be deemed as wastes under the said Act insofar as they are not necessary for the business activities of the workplace concerned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do16314, Apr. 13, 2012; 2013Do7121, May 16, 2014). The Defendants discharged such substances as are not necessary for the business activities of the workplace operated by the Defendants.

arrow