However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

(a) Reclamation of illegal wastes;

The Defendant is a person who has been working as a recognition hall of “Nonindicted Incorporated Association 2”.

No person shall reclaim wastes in any place other than the waste disposal facilities permitted, approved, or reported pursuant to the Wastes Control Act.

Nevertheless, around June 14, 2009, the Defendant acquired 120 tons of inorganic odio from the above company and buried in the above farmland without permission, on farmland ( Address 1 omitted), and on which the Defendant buried 120 tons of inorganic odiosia generated from Nonindicted Co. 1 (Supreme Court’s judgment). Furthermore, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, the Defendant buried the aggregate of 6,720 tons of inorganic odios (280 tons of 24 tons of inorganic odio trucks) discharged from the development of ○ industry from the above date to January 17, 2010 from the above date and time to January 17, 2010, in the aggregate of 6,720 tons of inorganic odios, which are wastes discharged from the above farmland and odio odio ( Address 4 omitted), the wife population (location 3 omitted), and the wife population (location 2 omitted) at the So-si.

As a result, the Defendant buried 6,720 tons of inorganic waste, which is industrial waste, in a place other than waste disposal facilities permitted, approved, or reported without permission from the competent authorities.

(b) Non-performance of an order to take measures;

Anyone shall, when he/she treats wastes in a manner that fails to meet the standards for and methods of treating wastes in accordance with the Wastes Control Act, modify methods of disposal and take other necessary measures.

From November 16, 2009 to December 2, 2009, the Defendant illegally buried 912 tons of inorganic sludge on the farmland of the Gi-si Man-si from November 16, 2009, and did not comply with an order issued by the competent authority to take measures for the appropriate disposal of inorganic sludge until April 16, 2010. Accordingly, the Defendant did not comply with the order to take measures for the appropriate disposal of wastes 912 tons notified by the competent authority.

2. Defendant 2

The Defendant is a representative of the “○ Industry Development” located in Yeongdeungpo-gu ( Address 6 omitted), and is a person who manages all the business affairs of the said company, such as environmental management affairs.

An industrial waste discharger shall dispose of wastes generated from his/her place of business by himself/herself, a person who has obtained permission for waste treatment business, a person who recycles other persons' wastes, or a person who installs and operates waste treatment facilities, and shall enter matters concerning the transfer and receipt of wastes in the electronic information processing program at the time of

Nevertheless, from November 9, 2009 to January 17, 2010, the Defendant did not enter the details on the transfer and takeover of the weapons-based truck 5,160 tons [the sum of 5,016 tons (3,344 cubic meters) in total and 209 tons of a 24 tons of a dump truck in [the sum of 5,016 tons of a 24 tons of a dump truck in [the attached Table] and 24 tons of a 144 tons of a dump truck in the wife population ( Address 5 omitted] at Chicago-si on January 16, 201, into the electronic information processing system, and did not entrust the aforementioned Defendant 1 with waste disposal business without permission.

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the Defendants, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4 (part)

1. The prosecutor’s statement of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 5 (part)

1. A written statement of Nonindicted 6’s preparation, a vehicle operation log, a written statement of Nonindicted 3’s preparation, and a written statement of Nonindicted 7’s preparation (investigative Records 723 pages)

1. Ascertainment report, on-site photograph, examination report, additional confirmation report, land cadastre, investigation report, copy of farmland improvement project, official document of the National Agricultural Institute, known matters concerning farmland improvement projects and civil petitions for investigation (including reports submitted by public officials in connection with illegal reclamation) and written statements (excluding public prosecution 7), investigation report (date of confirmation report-related to illegal treatment of wastes), report on site photograph, aggregate extraction business registration certificate, copy of business registration certificate, industrial waste discharger's report, examination report, notification on illegal disposal of wastes, examination report (use report and hazards used at the time of the occurrence of bearer), copy of the investigation report, examination report, copy of the official report, examination report, copy of the official report, examination report, confirmation report on land purchase and delivery report, copy of the official report, examination report, copy of the official report, report on land purchase and confirmation of the illegal treatment of wastes (excluding public prosecution 5), report on illegal treatment of wastes, copy of the official report, copy of the investigation report, examination, development report, and attachment of the report to the company;

A. Defendant 1: Articles 63 and 8(2) of the Wastes Control Act (the point of illegal waste reclamation, the choice of imprisonment) and Articles 65 subparag. 10 and 48(1) of the Wastes Control Act (the point of non-performance of the measure order and the choice of imprisonment)

(b) Defendant 2: Each Wastes Control Act Article 65 Subparag. 2, Article 18(1) (illegal entrustment and disposal of wastes, choice of imprisonment), Article 66 Subparag. 5, and Article 18(3) of the Wastes Control Act (the fact that the content of the receipt and delivery of wastes has not been carried out, and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants);

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (the defendants);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code (The following circumstances shall be considered in light of the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-hee