In addition, prior to the revision of the Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act on July 21, 2016, the Ministry of Environment or the competent administrative agency did not distinguish the main engineer with the closed main engineer with the chemical store, and the administrative guidance or guidance was not complete. Accordingly, the Defendants did not know of the distinction between the main engineer with the waste chemical shop and the chemical shop, and there was no awareness of illegality. Therefore, punishing the Defendants as a violation of the Waste Management Act would violate the principle of clarity in the criminal law.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and legal doctrine, which found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case.

2. The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court, and rejected the said assertion in detail in the column of “determination of the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion”.

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, even if the provisions on the disposal of waste masters under the former Waste Management Act are followed by the provisions on the disposal of waste masters, it is apparent that the chemical substance of waste masters should be buried in a management-type landfill among waste masters, and it is not deemed that the Defendants did not recognize the illegality due to the failure of the Defendants to recognize the provisions of the former Waste Management Act and subordinate statutes, or that punishment for the Defendants as a violation of the Waste Management Act violates the principle of clarity in the legal principle of punishment.

Therefore, the lower court found guilty of the facts charged of this case.