1. Case Overviewa. Party Represented by Barun Law
A corporation engaged in commissioned wastewater treatment (Company A) and three of its executives/employees
b. Background
Company A (the client) operates a commissioned wastewater treatment business equipped with licensed wastewater storage tanks, physicochemical treatment facilities, evaporation and concentration facilities, biological treatment facilities, and wastewater transport equipment. The company treats entrusted acid/alkali wastewater, plating wastewater, and heavy metal wastewater from other businesses before discharging or reusing the treated 무료바카라게임.
In November 2024, the Ministry of Environment initiated an investigation based on evidence obtained through an undercover inspection (sampling and testing of discharged wastewater). The authorities alleged that Company A unlawfully discharged wastewater containing specific hazardous 무료바카라게임 pollutants such as cadmium, copper, and mercury into public waters through a sewage conduit rather than through a lawful wastewater discharge outlet. Five separate search and seizure operations were conducted at the company's office and factory.
Although additional suspicions were identified through analysis of seized materials, these were challenged by defense counsel on legal grounds, prompting the authorities to raise further allegations. Ultimately, however, the prosecution rendered a full "no suspicion" (non-indictment) decision for all alleged offenses against all suspects, and no administrative sanctions were imposed.
2. Our Arguments and RoleThe investigation initially commenced on the serious allegation of unauthorized discharge of wastewater containing specific hazardous 무료바카라게임 pollutants into public waters, accompanied by five rounds of search and seizure by the Ministry of Environment, placing the client in an extremely disadvantageous position.
We focused first on whether the elements of the alleged unauthorized discharge were satisfied. By comprehensively analyzing the alleged discharge route and conduit structure, the client's wastewater treatment processes and discharge flow, structural characteristics of treatment facilities, and the volume of entrusted and discharged wastewater, we demonstrated that it was not objectively or scientifically established that the specific hazardous pollutants had directly flowed from the client's business site into public waters.
As a result, the investigative authorities concluded that proving unauthorized discharge would be difficult. They then shifted the direction of the investigation, adding an allegation that modifications to storage containers attached to wastewater transport vehicles required change approval, which had not been obtained.
In response, we argued that, under the statutory framework and legislative intent of the 무료바카라게임 Environment Conservation Act and its Enforcement Rules, the subject of change approval is not the storage container itself but the vehicle to which the transport container is attached. We established that Company A had duly obtained change approval whenever it replaced or added transport vehicles. The authorities' issue was, in substance, merely one of overloading, which could at most result in an administrative fine under the Road Traffic Act, and extending this to criminal punishment under the 무료바카라게임 Environment Conservation Act would constitute an impermissible expansive interpretation contrary to the statutory system.
Furthermore, we strongly asserted that for over ten years, Company A had used vehicles and storage containers of the same structure, had prepared operation logs for each transport, and had faithfully registered such records in the Mulbaro system, without ever receiving a corrective order or indication from the competent administrative authority that change approval was required. The Ministry of Environment then initiated yet another allegation that the company had obtained authorization for its wastewater transport vehicles by fraudulent means. We responded methodically by organizing relevant case law and factual analysis under the applicable statutory provisions.
3. Outcome and SignificanceThis case involved intensive and repeated search and seizure operations by the Ministry of Environment in connection with allegations categorized as serious environmental crimes, placing the client at risk of significant criminal liability.
However, by presenting materials demonstrating the normal operation of the wastewater treatment business and the absence of objective evidence supporting unauthorized discharge, and by actively arguing that additional allegations failed to meet statutory elements based on legal interpretation, administrative practice, and precedent, we secured a full non-indictment disposition for all initially alleged and subsequently added charges after two rounds of supplementary investigation and referral.
Moreover, no administrative sanctions such as business suspension or administrative fines were imposed on the client.
This case demonstrates that even where investigative authorities seek to substantiate allegations through repeated search and seizure, a comprehensive analysis of business structure, statutory framework and purpose, and relevant case law can result in a complete non-indictment outcome. Given the inseparable relationship between criminal liability and administrative sanctions in environmental criminal law and other administrative penal statutes, the case is also significant in that we provided one-stop legal services encompassing the criminal investigation, administrative sanctions, and potential administrative litigation, thereby fully satisfying the client's needs. It is expected to serve as an important precedent for handling similar cases involving violations of administrative penal laws in the future.
□ Attorneys in charge: Kim Young-oh, Kang Da-rong, Kim Yong-hwan, Han Min-guk
