(2) Even if the Defendant falls under wastes, he did not know that he was equipped with facilities and equipment in accordance with the standards to use them as fertilizers and reported it to the competent authorities.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Waste Management Act defines the term “waste” as “waste” refers to a substance that has become unnecessary for human life or business activities, such as waste oil, waste acid, waste alkh animal carcass, etc., as it is located in a waste year. Even if the substance was supplied as a raw material for recycling, it cannot be deemed that the substance has lost its nature as a waste solely on the ground that it was supplied as a raw material for recycling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6081, Feb. 28, 2003). Meanwhile, if the supplier of the foregoing substance produces a finished product after processing it by means of crushing, sorting, winding, mixing, and lodging, the substance did not yet reach a finished product in light of the intent of the supplier of the substance, the nature of the substance, etc.

Even if the substance was objectively approved through the above processing process to the extent that it is necessary for human life and business activities, the substance has lost its nature as a waste from that time and has changed into a raw material for the production of finished products.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed as a waste, that is, a substance that is no longer necessary for business activities using such substance (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3108, Jun. 12, 2008, etc.).