All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Illegal sentencing of each of the Defendants

B. The prosecutor’s improper sentencing (as to Defendant A)

2. We examine both the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion.

The court below held that the crime of this case actually caused harm to the environment and health, such as environmental pollution.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to see, the entire violation was corrected by moving to an indoor storage facility permitted within the short period after detection, the fact that there is no record of crime exceeding fines by Defendant A, the fact that there is no record of crime exceeding a fine by Defendant A, and the fact that considerable volume of waste cann't be healthy, the degree of violation of the law is not less weak, and the packing and storage status of wastes was considerably poor or poor, Defendant A was subject to criminal punishment three times of the same crime, and other records of criminal punishment in violation of the relevant administrative laws and regulations on several occasions, the second offense was committed even if there are records of punishment in violation of the relevant administrative laws and regulations, and the Defendants were committed a second offense, taking into account the unfavorable circumstances, such as Defendant A’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. (the suspended sentence 2 years in Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor and the fine KRW 5 million is imposed).

The grounds for the improper sentencing alleged by the Defendants (the legal absence, the effort to take measures after the commission of the crime, the age and radius of the enterprise, the confession and reflectivity, the relationship with the previous conviction and the health conditions) and the grounds for the improper sentencing alleged by the Prosecutor (including several identical criminal records, the scale of wastes, etc.) are all the circumstances in which the lower court already considered or changed the above conditions of sentencing when determining the Defendant’s punishment, as seen earlier.

Considering the above factors, the sentence of the court below is considered to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.