골재채취법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant operated an aggregate extraction business without being registered with the competent authority, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant did not require registration prescribed by the Aggregate Extraction Act, since the Defendant obtained permission to collect recyclable resources under the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources.
2. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case and rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds that the defendant's permission was granted only to permit the act in a development-restricted zone under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development-Restricted Zones (the installation of facilities for gathering recyclable resources) or to permit the storage of goods (the installation of sand, gravel, soil and stone), and that the defendant did not obtain permission or make registration for the selection of aggregate, and that he has not obtained permission for waste recycling under the Act on Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case for the above reasons, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as
3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.