Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100.

Defendant

B is a corporation established for the purpose of the general waste disposal business in Gangnam-si, which is an intermediate recycling business for waste, and the defendant A is the representative director of the above company.

1. A person who intends to treat wastes shall comply with the standards and methods prescribed by Presidential Decree, and shall not reclaim intermediate wastes which are made readily recyclable;

Nevertheless, on April 2017, the defendant, while running the above company, buried approximately 10 lux brue wastes and intermediate processed wastes, which are waste scrap scrap scraped in the 550 cubic meter inside the business premises of the above company of Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, Seoul, in the middle of 50 cubic meters.

2. Defendant B, at the above time and place, buried intermediate processed wastes as described in the above paragraph (1) by Defendant B, the representative director of the Defendant, in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to send investigative data to companies that violate the Wastes Control Act, post a business trip name, and report on internal investigation (the attachment of photographs of Gangnam-gu joint checking and temporary storage - the restoration of original state);

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 65 subparag. 1 and Article 13 subparag. 1 of the Waste Management Act; selection of fines

B. Defendant B: Articles 67, 65 subparag. 1, and 13 subparag. 1 of the Waste Management Act; selection of fines

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act on the confinement of a workhouse (Defendant A);

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are as follows: (a) the Defendants did not give the Defendants an opportunity to restore to the original state by giving them a warning in advance; and (b) the Defendants were given restoration to the original state, taking into account the fact that the Defendants were performing restoration to the original state, etc.

According to the records, the fact that the defendants completed the restoration of the original state is recognized as a result of the on-site inspection conducted in Gangnam-si on June 12, 2017.

However, according to the records, the records are as of April 29, 2017 from Gangnam-si.