All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the former Waste Management Act (amended by Act No. 13411, Jul. 20, 2015; enacted on July 21, 2016; hereinafter “former Waste Management Act”) did not present at all the definition of waste master and chemical substance, the criteria for classifying the two. Even according to the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the term “waste master” in attached Tables 4 and 5 is called “waste master” and the recycling method or disposal method is defined, and the type of waste master is not distinguished.

According to the former Waste Management Act, the Defendants did not constitute a tort against the violation of the Waste Management Act, and the Defendants did not know of the distinction between the main body and the chemical shop of the waste.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding all the facts charged against the Defendants.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (a fine of KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the factual mistake, and the lower court rejected the said assertion in detail in the column of “determination on the Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the circumstances stated in the judgment below, even if the provisions on the disposal of waste masters among the waste masters in the former Waste Management Act were to be followed, it is obvious that chemical substance manufacturers among waste masters should be buried in a management-type landfill facility, and that there was no awareness of illegality due to the failure of the Defendants to recognize the provisions of the former Waste Management Act, as they were the business operators discharging industrial waste.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there are errors.