All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Wastes Control Act defines the term “waste” as “waste” as “waste matter, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste egg, dead body of animals, etc., which is no longer necessary for human life or business activities.” Thus, even if such substance is supplied as a raw material for recycling, it cannot be deemed that such circumstance alone does not lose the nature as a waste.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6081 Decided February 28, 2003). Meanwhile, where a person supplied with the above materials manufactures finished products after processing them by means of crushing, screening, mixing, mixing, and lodging methods, even if it did not yet reach a finished product in light of the intent of the person who is supplied with the above materials and the nature and nature of the material, if it is objectively approved by the social norms as necessary for human life or business activities through the above processing process, the substance is deemed to have lost its characteristic as a waste and has been changed into a source material for manufacturing finished products. Thus, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes waste, i.e., a substance that is no longer necessary for business activities (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3108, Jun. 12, 2008), and if it does not reach such a level, it shall be deemed as waste still.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the single-use feed, which is produced by Defendant A as a raw material in a corporation operated by Defendant A, is manufactured through the process of input of raw materials, storage, screening and crushing, the primary sloping, drying (heratization), mixing, and storage. However, the substance of this case provided by Defendant A to Defendant B is completed only during the above process of screening and crushing, and the process of sloping, drying, etc. is not completed.