A. In the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants did not examine whether the Defendants performed the recycling of the waste master under subparagraph 26 of attached Table 5-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act when they recycled the waste master; and (b) did not examine whether the Defendants constituted the recycling method under subparagraph 2 of attached Table 5-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act; and (c) did not provide a recycling method for the remaining waste masters except for the waste masters; and (d) the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case on the part of the Defendants.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the above legal principles.

B. In fact, prior to the revision of the Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act on July 21, 2016, the Defendants did not distinguish between the main substance shop and the main substance shop. The Defendants did not know of the distinction between the main substance shop and the main substance shop with the chemical shop due to the fact that the Defendants did not know of the distinction between the main substance shop and the main substance shop. The Defendants’ punishment as a violation of the Waste Management Act violates the principle of retroactive prohibition.

As a recycled product that can be used to recycle the chemical substance substance from which the Defendants discharged, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants’ handling chemical substance with chemical substance in the sea dynamic environment is unlawful. Since the chemical substance discharged by the Defendants in the sea dynamic environment is a substance that lost the disposal physical substance by removing the harmful substance of the chemical substance from the chemical substance discharged by the Defendants, it is difficult to view it as a chemical substance with chemical substance.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Defendant’s guilty of all the charges of this case.

(c)

The sentence C by the lower court (each fine of KRW 12 million) is too serious to the Defendants on the wrongful argument of sentencing.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine ) Enforcement Rule of the former Waste Management Act (amended by July 2016).