The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, even if the Defendant did not reclaim wastes, because the Defendant did not either buried the ground or buried wastes, or buried soil on the surface of wastes, and did not have the status of the producer or the disposal manager of wastes.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the factual misunderstanding and the legal principles, the defendant argued the same purport in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail. In light of the records based on the relevant legal principles, the court below's finding and judgment are acceptable, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Next, the main text of Article 13(1) of the Waste Management Act provides that a person who intends to dispose of wastes shall comply with the standards and methods prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 65 subparagraph 1 of the same Act provides that "A person who reclaims wastes in violation of Article 13 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won."

Provided, That in cases falling under subparagraphs 1, 6 and 11, imprisonment and fines may be imposed concurrently.

As stated in the above, as long as the Defendant intended to dispose of the instant wastes, it is determined that the Defendant constitutes “a person who intends to dispose of the instant wastes” as prescribed in the above Act, and in anywhere the above Act does not limit the person who is obligated to manufacture or dispose of the relevant wastes. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit

B. Illegal sentencing factors, Defendant’s waste disposal at his own expense.