Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

A person ordered by the competent authority to take measures, such as changing the methods of disposal of wastes, suspending the disposal of wastes, or bringing in wastes, shall comply therewith.

Nevertheless, on February 1, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to take measures (third vehicles) from the racing market to the effect that “a waste of approximately 800 tons stored on land B and C in Gyeongju-si shall be treated lawfully until April 2, 2018,” but did not comply with it.

Accordingly, the defendant did not comply with the order of the competent authorities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. E statements;

1. On-site photographs;

1. A real estate lease contract;

1. Notification and public notice of administrative disposition on violation of the Wastes Control Act;

1. The written order of administrative disposition [the defendant and his defense counsel] asserts that the defendant signed the lease contract for the land at the scene of this case with the tenant at the end of F, D, and actually performed the work of separating wastes at the site of this case, and the person who loaded wastes at the site of this case is F and D. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant committed waste disposal in collusion with F, etc., in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, namely, even if the defendant was to receive daily allowances and borrowed the tenant's name and borrowed the tenant's name, and that the defendant was sufficiently aware of the act of bringing wastes at the site of this case, and that the defendant received the order of necessary measures from F, etc. from the racing market as the tenant of the land at the site of this case, it is reasonable to view that the above argument is without merit]. Thus, it is reasonable to apply

1. Article 65 of the Wastes Control Act and Articles 65 and 48 of the same Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. The Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;