The defendant is the representative of C who manufactures and distributes waste recycling.

1. Although the Defendant obtained a license for a waste disposal business and changed the location of the waste disposal facility from the competent authorities, the Defendant did not obtain a license for the change from the competent authorities, even though around October 2008, even though he changed the location of the facility from the Silsung City, which was the present place of business, to E in the Silsung City, which was the present place of business.

2. The Defendant, when he/she intends to repair or repair another person’s business site wastes and make such wastes usable again for the same purpose, should report waste disposal to the pertinent government office. However, on May 8, 2013, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s business site, did not report waste disposal to the competent government office in order to repair or repair waste cells collected free of charge from Ethical Gael Co., Ltd. located in Chungcheongnam-si in the Defendant’s business site and recycle them for the same purpose.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 65 Subparag. 4 of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 12321, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 65 Subparag. 4, Article 25(11) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 12321, Jan. 21, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 66 Subparag. 2, and Article 46(1) of the former Wastes Control Act (which

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (one day: 50,000 won) of the Criminal Act;

1. Punishment of suspended sentence under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act: A fine of 500,000 won, the defendant has no record of punishment other than punishment once for another type of crime, and the defendant seems to inevitably move his place of business, and a report on the change of the building indication is not made.