However, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the Defendant was not prohibited from disposing of wastes in the above way, or the Defendant did not recognize the fact that waste concrete and inorganic sludge were injected. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who works as the representative of D (hereinafter “D”) with the main business of manufacturing ready-mixed from the early policeman of March 2013 to the racing-si.

A person discharging wastes at his/her place of business shall entrust the disposal of wastes generated from his/her place of business to a person who has obtained permission for the waste disposal business, a person who has filed a report on waste disposal, a person who has installed and operates waste disposal facilities, a person licensed for a construction waste disposal

Nevertheless, from early 2013 to June 25, 2014, the Defendant, as wastes generated from the said D’s place of business from early 2013 to early 2014, did not use waste concrete or inorganic sludge, which cannot be recycled, melted them by using a rode, a construction machine, without using waste disposal facilities, and manufactured ready-mixed by mixing them as raw materials to ready-mixed manufacturing facilities.

B. 1) The prosecutor indicted the instant facts charged by applying Articles 65 subparag. 2 and 18 subparag. 1 of the former Waste Management Act (amended by Act No. 13411, Jul. 20, 2015; hereinafter “former Waste Management Act”).

2) However, Article 65 Subparag. 2 of the former Waste Management Act provides “Article 18.2.”