The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Collection and transport of the waste edible milk is not subject to permission under the Wastes Control Act;

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Article 25(1) of the Wastes Control Act provides that “A person who intends to engage in the business of collecting, transporting, recycling, or disposing of wastes (excluding persons who intend to recycle or report on waste treatment, excluding food wastes) shall submit a waste treatment business plan to the Minister of Environment and submit it to the Mayor/Do Governor where the target is designated wastes, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.”

According to the above provisions, a person who intends to recycle household wastes, excluding food wastes, shall be excluded from permission. However, the crime of this case is that the defendant collected and transported waste milk without permission from the competent authority, and the object of the crime of this case (i) is the food waste itself, and (ii) the act is not recyclable, and thus, it does not constitute an exception to permission under Article 25(1) of the Wastes Control Act, and thus, the defendant's argument on the grounds for appeal cannot

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.