- (2016No person shall reclaim or incinerate wastes at any place other than the waste disposal facilities permitted, approved, or reported under the Wastes Control Act.

Nevertheless, the defendant from January 2015 to the First Lieutenant.

2. Between the first patrolman, tar approximately 200 km, which is a commercial waste, was buried without permission, when making shots from the shot site of “D” located in Naju City.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of suspect of the police accused;

1. Statement of E by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning complaint forms, photographs of waste collection pages, and removed waste photographs;

1. Article 63 subparagraph 2 of the Wastes Control Act and Article 8 (2) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Provisions of Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning confinement in a workhouse (2016, 51);

1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant, from May 14, 2014 to February 6, 2015, worked as a factory site in D operated by the victim E, who had been in the city of Ghana from May 14, 2014 to February 6, 2015, did not separately collect the beginning amount produced therein, and the Defendant had the effect of an influent tree totaling to which the market price cannot be known by spreading it to the back

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant laid down the timbered amount with the consent or instruction from the victim.

The victim asserts that there is no reason to instruct the victim to abandon the beginning value of the goods sold.

On the other hand, according to the witness F’s legal statement, the defendant started to work in a place from a clerical error to the factory site, and he had been already installed laves and rubber straws to remove the beginning amount from a mountain, and there was also a question of how the employees “I would have no way to solve the problem differently.”

On the other hand, the witness G’s testimony was supported by the facts charged because he transferred the circumstances of the instant case to other employees.