[2] In a case where, for the purpose of using as composts, brushes and sawbs et al. as wastes under the Wastes Control Act were put into effect for not less than three years, and then buried and stored in another place, the case holding that the buried objects do not constitute a crime of violating the Wastes Control Act since they lost the nature of the wastes and were changed into the raw materials of composts

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act provides that the term “waste” means garbage, materials, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste eggs, dead bodies of animals, etc., which have become unnecessary for human life or business activities. Although the substance is supplied as a raw material for recycling, it does not lose the nature of the substance (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do70, Jun. 1, 2001). However, in cases where a finished product is produced after being processed by means of crushing, screening, ventilation, mixing, and lodging, even if it did not yet reach the finished product in light of the intent of the person who receives the material, and the nature and nature of the material, if it became objectively necessary for human life or business activities through the above processing process, it shall be deemed that the substance has lost its nature as a finished product from that time, and it shall not be deemed that it has become unnecessary for the substance to be discarded (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do2016, Jun. 1, 2001).

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the conjunctive facts of this case on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant was found to have been aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was found to have been aware of the fact in order to use it as a compost in the field located in Yangju-si 281, Yangju-si from November 1, 1999 to February 200, by mixing 281, and then moved to the forest located in Yangju-dong 2-16, Yangju-si, Yangju-dong, Yangju-dong, 2003, and buried part of it into the forest located in the 16th place; and (b) the instant landfill was deemed to have gone through the process of processing the well-being over 3 years, so long as he could lose the nature as a waste and be used as a raw material for compost. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact finding and judgment above are justified, and there was no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the concept of waste.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)