Accordingly, the above D violated the above in relation to the defendant's business.

2. The proviso of Article 65 of the Act on the Promotion of Construction Wastes Recycling of the Markets provides that a corporation may not apply joint penal provisions in cases where it is not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to the relevant business in order to prevent such violation. In specific cases, whether a corporation neglected its duty of considerable attention and supervision shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances related to the relevant violation, namely, the legislative purport of the relevant Act; the legislative purport of the relevant Act; the degree of infringement of legal interests anticipated to be a violation of penal provisions; the purport of preparing joint penal provisions concerning the relevant violation; the specific form of the relevant violation; the degree of damage or result actually caused by the violation; the scale of the business of the corporation; the possibility of supervision or supervision

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do5824, Feb. 25, 2010; 2008Do7834, Sept. 9, 2010). As regards the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, (i) the Act on the Promotion of Construction Wastes Recycling, which provides for the efficient use of national resources by treating construction waste generated from construction works, etc. in an environment-friendly and proper manner, and by facilitating the recycling thereof.