2. Determination that Defendant A performed restoration of all the wastes buried in the original state.

However, the quantity of wastes buried by Defendant A is considerably more than 3.8 tons, and Defendant A had already been punished twice due to a violation of the Waste Management Act, but he/she again committed the instant crime. In addition, Defendant A has been punished several times due to a violation of the Food Sanitation Act, a violation of the Automobile Management Act, etc.

In addition, there is no change in circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in the trial compared with the original judgment.

In full view of all the circumstances, including the aforementioned circumstances, including the Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of similar cases, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is only within the scope of reasonable discretion and is not recognized as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.