A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Although a person who intends to treat wastes complies with the criteria and methods prescribed by Presidential Decree, he/she was in custody of approximately 1,00 tons of waste glass pulver from around November 2, 2012 to the voice group C and 4, but was in custody of approximately 1,000 tons of waste glass pulver, he/she did not comply with an order to take measures until April 20, 2015, even though he/she was notified of the order to dispose of the above wastes from the number of voice groups around March 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Current status of reports and photographs of on-site verification results;

1. A prior notification of an administrative disposition (IIth of an order to take measures) or an administrative disposition (IIth of an order to take measures);

1. On-site inspections, reporting on the results of measures taken, and reporting on the results thereof;

1. A report on investigation (four copies of photographs);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (report on telephone communications to persons in charge of telephone communications in the voice-raising stations);

1. Article 1 of the relevant Act and the former Waste Management Act (amended by Act No. 13411, Jul. 20, 2015) regarding criminal facts and the former Waste Management Act (amended by Act No. 13411, Jul. 21, 2016) were enforced since the institution of public prosecution of the instant case.

Article 65 Subparag. 10 and Article 48 (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution

1. Whether the principle of non-existence of a private company is violated;

A. On June 7, 2012, the Defendant had been sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution at the Cheongju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 7, 2014, on the charge that he/she failed to comply with an order to take measures to dispose of wastes accumulated in the place indicated in the facts constituting the instant crime (hereinafter “the instant wastes”).

However, the instant order to take measures (hereinafter “order to take measures of this case”) merely notifies the extension of the waste disposal period on the same matter as the prior order to take measures, and thus, the facts constituting the instant facts charged and the facts charged in the prior ruling are identical.

Therefore, the indictment of this case is judged to be acquitted because it is against the principle of absence of one company.