2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months;

The ninety-five days of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

A. Legal principles

With regard to Article 1-A(a) of the facts charged, Article 7(2) and Article 58-2 of the Wastes Control Act, which is a provision that punishs a person who has not obtained permission for a waste reclamation business, should be punished for changing permission for a waste reclamation business without obtaining permission for a change, should be applied, although Article 26(10) and Article 60 subparag. 4 of the Wastes Control Act, which is a provision that punishs a person who has not obtained permission for a change in the legal reasoning, applied Article 7(2) and Article 58-2 of the same Act.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant arbitrarily collected all the wastes buried, the punishment of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment of party members

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

Article 7 (2) of the Wastes Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "no person shall reclaim wastes in any place other than a landfill facility permitted or approved under this Act;" Article 26 (10) of the Act provides that "any person who has obtained permission under the provisions of paragraph (3) intends to change any important matter prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, among matters permitted, shall obtain permission for such change; and where he/she intends to change any other matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, he/she shall file a report for change; and Article 58-2 of the Act provides that "any person who has dumped or buried commercial wastes in violation of the provisions of Article 7 (1) or (2) shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won; and Article 60 subparagraph 4 of the Act provides that "any person who has changed permitted matters for a waste treatment business without obtaining permission for change under the provisions of Article 26 (10) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won; and each Enforcement Rule of the Wastes of the Wastes Act shall be changed or amended.

Article 58-2 and Article 7(2) of the Act are subject to reclamation of commercial wastes at a place other than a landfill facility, while Article 60 subparag. 4, Article 26(10) of the Act is subject to reclamation, Article 18(1)5, 6, and 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, Article 58(1)5, 6, and 9 of the Act does not apply to the act of newly installing a waste disposal facility, or changing the treatment capacity or storage capacity of the facility originally permitted without obtaining permission. In addition, Article 58-2 and Article 7(2) of the Act do not limit the scope of the act of reclamation to the “person who has not obtained permission for a Pesting Business” by stipulating that the subject of the act of reclamation is “a person who has not obtained permission for a Pesting Business” without obtaining permission for a change, but it is determined that Article 60 subparag. 4, Article 26(10) of the Act is subject to the application of Article 58(2)2 and Article 7(2) of the Act.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the fact that the Defendant created a waste reclamation site without obtaining permission for the waste reclamation business, rather than reclaiming wastes in that place, the Defendant’s existing reclamation site was extended, and then buried wastes in that place, and that the Defendant illegally buried wastes after each of the crimes in this case, collected the expenses for recovery at the port, deposited the expenses for restoration, the Defendant appears to have divided his criminal conduct in depth through the prison life for a considerable period of time, and other various sentencing conditions revealed in the course of investigation records and trial, even though considering the fact that the Defendant had already been sentenced to a fine on one occasion due to the Defendant’s violation of the Wastes Control Act, it is unreasonable to view that the Defendant’s punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, suspended execution for 3 years, and community service 160 hours is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is

(a) Illegal reclamation of wastes: Articles 58-2 and 7(2) of the Wastes Control Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

(b) Occupation of unauthorized cutting of standing timber: Article 118 (1) 4 and Article 90 (1) of the Forestry Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

2. Selection of species;

Each Imprisonment Selection

3. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Punishment for Violation of Wastes Control Act with Aggravation of Punishment, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Aggravation of Punishment)

4. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

5. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Judges Kim Chang-sub (Presiding Judge)