The defendant from July 11, 2016 to the same year.

7. By the end of 19.1, the Plaintiff buried waste by reclaiming approximately 18 tons of the remaining construction wastes after the removal of the housing on the said land to Pokeers E from the Gyeonggi Steel-gun C and D (hereinafter “instant land”).

2. According to the evidence duly admitted, the fact that E buried approximately 18 tons of construction wastes at the date and place specified in the facts charged is recognized.

This paper examines whether the defendant ordered E to reclaim construction wastes at the time.

The direct evidence that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is the only statement of E and F in this legal and investigative agency, and each of the above statements cannot be trusted in light of the following circumstances:

① The Defendant decided to remove the existing worn-out housing in order to construct a new building that he would reside in the instant land owned by him, ordered the removal to E, and entrusted the disposal of construction wastes to G Co., Ltd.

② Some of the H-owned housing units were built on the instant land because they were located across the boundary. However, E was on the land during the process of removing old housing units on the instant land under a contract with the Defendant.

H-owned housing was removed to some parts, etc.

Since then, E buried construction wastes on the H-owned housing in this case, and construction wastes on the housing owned by the Defendant seems to have been properly disposed of through G Co., Ltd.

E and F have filled up construction wastes on the instant land at the Defendant’s direction.

“The Defendant, who has been entrusted with the disposal of construction wastes to G Co., Ltd., refers to the building in which he/she will reside.