1. As to Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

According to the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the crime of bribery against the defendant, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misconception of facts as alleged in the theory of lawsuit

In particular, according to the records, although there are some inconsistencys as pointed out in the grounds of appeal in the process of statements made by the prosecutor through several times from the time of the ruling of the court below, the whole contents of the statement shall be deemed to be the whole contents of the statement, and such circumstance alone shall not be deemed to make it impossible for the prosecutor to believe it. There

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

Article 17 (2) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 4970 of Aug. 4, 1995) provides that the types of general waste collection and transportation business (the business of collecting and transporting general wastes to the disposal place) and the details of the business shall be classified into general waste collection and transportation business, ② general waste interim disposal business (the business of interim disposal by means of incineration, crushing, etc. with general waste disposal facilities) and ③ general waste disposal business (the business of interim disposal by means of final waste disposal facilities and the business of final disposal by means of landfill, discharging into the sea area, etc.) and Article 17 (1) of the former Wastes Control Act provides that a person who intends to conduct the business of collecting, transporting, or disposing of general wastes shall obtain permission from the Mayor/Do Governor for each business type by satisfying the requirements for facilities, equipment, technical capability, etc. as determined by Ordinance of the Prime Minister.

Therefore, even if the defendant obtained permission for the general waste collection and transportation business, if the defendant committed an act that constitutes the final waste disposal business by reclaiming "Oshen, which is a waste, as stated in its reasoning, as long as he/she did not obtain permission for the final waste disposal business, it would be deemed that he/she conducted the final waste disposal business without permission and constitutes Article 17 (1) and Article 59 subparagraph 1 of the former Wastes Control Act. Thus, the criminal facts of this case (the crime from June to September 1992) were prosecuted until October 4, 1996, the five-year statute of limitations under Article 249 of the Criminal Procedure Act has not expired since it was apparent that the statute of limitations has not expired until October 4, 1996 (the same shall apply to cases where the defendant committed such act at once as alleged in the grounds of final appeal). It is justifiable in the judgment of the original purport and it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of final appeal).

Meanwhile, Article 13(3) of the former Wastes Control Act provides that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall collect, transport, and dispose of general wastes in accordance with the standards and methods prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister. The same shall also apply to cases where a general waste disposal business operator vicariously performs his/her duties pursuant to Article 13(2). Article 60 Subparag. 1, which is a penal provision, provides that a person who disposes of general wastes shall be punished in violation of Article 13(3). According to Article 7 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 467 of Oct. 8, 1994), the standards and methods of collection, transport, and disposal of general wastes are specifically listed, and the above penal provision provides that a person who has obtained a license for general waste collection and transportation business shall separately obtain permission for a general waste disposal business by industry. In light of the above provisions, it is clear that the above penal provision does not violate the standards and methods prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister’s final disposal of wastes.

3. Defendant 3 did not file an appellate brief within the statutory period, and Defendant 3 did not indicate the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)