Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant .

A. The Defendants thought that the wastes subject to permission for the comprehensive recycling business, which were delivered by the competent authority, include “inorganic sludge” on the wastes subject to permission for the general recycling business, and thus, they are considered to be included in one of the inorganic sludge as one of the wastes subject to business, and the waste discharged from the workplace was reported to the competent authority along with the permission of the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) who entered into an entrustment contract for the disposal of wastes, and the pertinent authority determined that the Defendant Company was an eligible business entity and issued the certificate of reporting the waste discharged from the workplace, and the Defendants considered that the wastewater treatment and the process can be treated in accordance with the Defendant Company’s permission.

Therefore, the Defendants did not intend to engage in an unauthorized waste treatment business.

② In addition, the Defendant Company received an appropriate order for treatment from the pertinent administrative agency, and entrusted the treatment to another waste disposal business entity with the expenses. As such, the Defendants did not engage in the wastewater treatment business and the process sludge brought into the Republic of Korea.

(1) As to the violation of the terms and conditions of permission for waste treatment business, the Defendants’ assertion that the terms and conditions of permission “to prepare a management ledger for the quantity of bringing in and use of general Saturdays” are measurable by volume, and thus, it is impossible for the Defendants to file an appeal on December 7, 2016 and the summary of the oral argument on January 2, 2017. However, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as the Defendants filed an appeal after the lapse of the submission period for the reasons for appeal, and even after ex officio examination, it is sufficiently acceptable that the Defendants did not comply with the above conditions of permission. Accordingly, the Defendants’ mistake as alleged above is erroneous.