Nevertheless, around April 2013, the Defendant: (a) buried waste concrete, a commercial waste generated in the process of removing the previous house, and waste 15 tons of waste block, and consulted with E, a construction business entity, to improve the ground; (b) and (c) ordered F, who removed the said house, to reclaim waste of the said new housing site as it is on the new housing site; and (d) buried them.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with E to reclaim industrial wastes in a place other than waste disposal facilities.

2. Determination

A. The construction site of this case removed previous houses and flatized work

According to F’s investigation agencies and statements in this court, it is recognized that the F buried waste generated from the removal of the previous house, such as waste concrete, into the instant housing site, etc.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was involved in the act of reclaiming wastes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

1) The article F, which filled up the instant wastes, only filled out some of the wastes (in accordance with the direction of the construction business entity E) according to the construction business entity E, and the Defendant did not directly instruct the reclamation of the instant wastes to himself.

“The statement was made”.

On the other hand, in the police interrogation protocol for E (F - No. 316 of the investigation records) and the police interrogation protocol for the accused (F - No. 326 of the investigation records) of the accused, the above F buried wastes remaining after reclaiming the wall inside the wall in accordance with the direction of the accused.

The statement to the effect that it is “........”