The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and mistake of facts) and the phrase “immediately” is “not included in the calculation for six months or less.”

As can not be seen, immediately “the suspension and closure order of the use of this case to which the order was issued” does not constitute an order that did not specify the period, and the order of closure was issued after giving a prior notice of disposition before issuing the suspension order of use of this case, and giving one month time after the suspension order. Thus, each of the above orders cannot be deemed unlawful.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant did not report on the installation of discharge facilities; and (b) around March 16:30, 208, the head of the Seongbuk-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City U.S. issued an order to suspend the use of waste-generating facilities (hereinafter “order to suspend the use of waste in this case”); (c) the Defendant’s installation of discharge facilities or order to suspend the use of waste-generating facilities (hereinafter “the head of the Gu’s order to suspend the use of waste-generating facilities”) on the ground that the period of disposal against the Defendant on the ground that “the installation and use of non-compliance with the order to suspend the use of the instant waste-generating facilities at around 16:30,” and “the head of the Gu’s order to suspend the use of the waste-generating facilities at least 3:15,00,000 on October 23, 2015 (hereinafter “the order to shut down the instant livestock-generating facilities”) or to suspend the use of the waste-generating facilities at least 4:5,”

Since "the suspension order of use" shall be set within six months, the suspension order of use of this case shall be set as "immediately" and the suspension order of use of this case shall be set as "the disposal period".