The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not reclaim living wastes on the instant land.

In addition, while purchasing the instant land from K, the Defendant’s vescence, and in order to obtain certification of farmland acquisition, E promised to remove a prefabricated building and vinyl on the instant land at his own responsibility instead of obtaining prior approval of land use in order to obtain a certificate of farmland acquisition. As such, E is responsible for disposing of the vinyl wastes buried on the instant land.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the lower court ex officio examined the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment, and applied Article 65 Subparag. 1 and Article 13 of the Waste Management Act (the imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or with prison labor for not more than thirty million won).

However, Article 65 Subparag. 1 and Article 13 of the former Waste Management Act shall apply to the instant crime between May 1997 and July 201, 2013, where the statutory penalty was stipulated as imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding twenty million won, prior to the amendment by Act No. 12321, Jan. 21, 2014.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in application of the law and affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the below.

3. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant buried household wastes, such as vinyl, plastic house-related wastes, brine, World Cup, lids, and ice cream bars, on the instant land. In so doing, the lower court, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding

Even on waste reclamation.