폐기물관리법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, as to the facts, did not directly inform Defendant B of the lower judgment that he arbitrarily buried the waste concrete at the construction site without entrusting the waste disposal business entity with the waste disposal business entity.
In addition, waste concrete at one construction site was buried at the end of December 2016 by B, and it was not buried on January 5, 2017, such as the instant charges.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On December 2016, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case was contacted by the Defendant to the effect that “Around that time, the construction supervisor, at the construction site, left approximately 25 tons of waste concrete generated in the process of removing retaining walls of the F (hereinafter “the instant construction”) from the Nanannam-gun Eth (hereinafter “the instant construction”) among the public officials working in the construction site, leaving approximately 25 tons of waste concrete generated in the process of removing retaining walls of the Nanannam-gun Eth (hereinafter “the instant construction”). At the end of the lower judgment on December 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) laid off the waste concrete located in the nearby public premises of Ganan-gun; (b) laid down the new concrete on the land before completing the construction site; and (c) laid down the new concrete on the 5th day prior to the completion of the construction; and (c) laid down the waste treatment site to the purport that “A new mar-gun, 2015.”
Accordingly, in collusion with B and C, the Defendant buried approximately 25 tons of waste concrete, which is a commercial waste, in a place other than waste disposal facilities permitted, approved, or reported.
B. The lower court’s judgment is consistent with Defendant B.