2. The Defendant’s mistake in the instant crime is divided and reflected, and there are circumstances such as obtaining permission for a comprehensive waste recycling business after the instant crime.

However, the above circumstances appear to be fully considered in the original judgment, and there is no special circumstance or circumstance that can be newly considered in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the original judgment.

Although the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime in 2008, he again committed the instant crime, and the quality of the crime is not weak in light of the legislative intent of the Wastes Control Act with the aim of preventing the generation of wastes to the maximum extent possible and properly disposing of wastes generated, thereby contributing to environmental conservation and the qualitative improvement of the people's lives.

It is reasonable to transfer recyclable wastes.

In light of other similar cases’ equity in punishment, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., and the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.