beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) is able to be recycled by the chemical substance located in the chemical substance discharged by the Defendants, and can be fully used for banking. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants’ handling of waste gas with chemical substance in the company’s sea environment with limited liability (hereinafter “sea environment”) is unlawful.
In addition, prior to the revision of the Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act on July 21, 2016, the Ministry of Environment or the competent administrative agency did not distinguish the main agent of waste disposal from the main agent of waste disposal, and the administrative guidance or guidance was in a situation where the administrative guidance or guidance was not conducted. Therefore, the Defendants did not know of the distinction between the main agent of waste disposal and the main agent of waste disposal, and did not have any awareness of illegality. The punishment of the Defendants as a violation of the Waste Management Act would violate the principle of clarity in criminal law.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and legal doctrine, which found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case.
2. The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court, and rejected the said assertion in detail in the column of “determination of the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion”.
In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, even if the provisions on the disposal of waste masters among the waste masters in the former Waste Management Act are followed, it is apparent that the chemical substance shop among waste masters should be buried in a management-type landfill facility, and it does not seem that the Defendants did not recognize the illegality due to their failure to recognize the provisions of the former Waste Management Act and subordinate statutes, or that punishing the Defendants as a violation of the Waste Management Act would violate the principle of clarity in the legal principle of the crime.
Therefore, the facts charged in this case are examined.