The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the Defendant did not constitute wastes under the Wastes Control Act, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact.

Judgment

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below can fully find the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

Article 2-2 of the Wastes Control Act provides that "The detailed classification of the types of wastes and the types of recycling shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, taking into account the source of waste generation, components, hazards, etc., and Article 4-2 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, which is subject to the delegation by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, provides that "the detailed classification of wastes by type under Article 2-2 of the Act shall be as specified in attached Table 4." The detailed classification of waste and waste metal by type of wastes is classified into industrial wastes according to the above Enforcement Rule [Attachment 4], and thus, the defendant'

In light of the management status of the instant goods, the circumstance where the Defendant moved the said goods in the instant apartment, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, entrusted the storage on the part of the apartment, or was inevitably stored in the storage place by narrowing the storage place.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since there is no ground for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.