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 investigated by the court below and the court below’s judgment, even based on the provisions on the separate drug management laws (amended by Act No. 12321, Jan. 21, 2014) and the enforcement rules of the same Act, it is clear that the chemical substance and waste disposal should be buried in a management-type landfill among waste disposal agents, and it is a criminal legal principle to punish the Defendants as a violation of the former Waste Management Act.