The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defense counsel;

A. Although the Defendant was aware of the facts about the instant waste treatment process at all, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the fact that the Defendant believed the testimony of H and J without credibility, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence imposing a fine of KRW 7,00,000 is too unreasonable in light of the fact that it is harsh to impose all responsibility on the Defendant and the Defendant’s economic situation is not good.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly deemed unreasonable in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

On the other hand, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is the above legal principle.