All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Although examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating Article 65 subparag. 23 of the Waste Management Act, intentional act, and mistake of law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who fails to comply with an order to take measures” under Article 65 subparag. 23 of the Waste Management Act is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it is alleged that the Defendants’ assertion was made on the ground of appeal or that the lower court did not make it subject to an ex officio determination.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.