The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not know that the act of creating a ridged soil by using organic sludge was subject to reporting under the Waste Management Act, and thus, the Defendant did not have any awareness of intention or illegality.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The Defendant did not know that the Defendant’s act of creating a bridge by using organic sludge was subject to reporting under the Waste Management Act.

Even if this is merely a site of law, it cannot be viewed that the intention is denied merely because it is merely a site of law.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant told the investigative agency to raise the between Gyeongnam and Gyeongnam at the time of the conference conference, with the permission from the 2010 conference conference, and did not obtain the permission, even though the Defendant visited at the time of the conference conference, on several occasions, the Defendant did not obtain the permission.

It was known after the enforcement of the regulation that it is punishable if the ridge is recycled without a report, and that it is not possible to receive a report from Kimhae, thereby running the match business.

In light of the fact that “the Defendant stated to the effect that his act was not a crime under the law, but was erroneous as to the Defendant’s act.”

Even if there were reasonable grounds for mistake

It does not appear.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is without merit.

B. The fact that the defendant recycled wastes without reporting the fact that the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is recognized, and the defendant was guilty of the same kind.