A. In light of the circumstances such as the cause of the instant improvement order, which is caused by the act of a third party, the cause of typhoons, the aggravation of the financial standing of the Defendant due to typhoons, and the declaration of a disaster zone immediately caused by typhoons in the above area, it is unreasonable to impose the Defendant with an improvement order setting a short-term improvement period of three months on the Defendant, and the extension of the improvement period is an illegal disposition that deviates from the limits of discretion, and thus, is liable for the Defendant’s violation.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In a case where a person who received a corrective order from an administrative agency pursuant to Article 31(4) of the misunderstanding of legal principles fails to comply with such order, the person shall be punished pursuant to Article 65(20) of the Waste Management Act. The corrective order issued by the administrative agency shall be lawful.

On the contrary, a violation of the Waste Management Act cannot be established in a case where a corrective order is deemed illegal even if it is not null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do7321, Sept. 21, 2017). However, even if the corrective order is somewhat excessively imposing a burden, it does not necessarily become null and void as a matter of course or become an unlawful administrative disposition.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor around November 4, 2016: (a) around February 28, 2016, the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor of Ulsan Metropolitan City: (b) maintained the function of excellent exclusion facilities around the waste reclamation site operated by the defendant to maintain normal management; and (c) the retaining wall and embankment to maintain structural stability; (b) the defendant did not comply with the improvement order of this case; and (c) the agency in charge did not improve the improvement period.