The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

Punishment A and B shall be ten months of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) the Defendant did not receive a verbal report from the J on the confirmation of change of the competent authority in relation to waste treatment; and (b) received the first report on February 29, 2012 through the “written request for waste testing and analysis” drafted by the J around July 2011; and (c) the Defendant received a report on the confirmation of change in relation to waste treatment from the J around July 201, the lower court erred by misapprehending of legal principles and misapprehending of legal principles.

② Since the Defendant received a report from February 29, 2012 on the fact that waste oil generated within the instant simple manufacturing plant is subject to incineration, it is difficult to view that he/she conspiredd to commit the crime of A since August 9, 201.

In addition, in relation to the crime around May 2013, since around August 9, 2011, A had discharged waste oil without permission from around August 9, 201, it is not common sense to require the defendant to dispose of waste oil on or around May 2013. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant discharged waste oil without permission in collusion with A is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C Co., Ltd. (1) - an employee of Defendant C (1) - who is an employee of the Defendant of mistake of facts, has received a verbal report from the J on July 201 on the confirmation of change from the competent authority in relation to waste disposal, but has not intentionally obtained confirmation of change, or has not discharged waste oil in collusion with A without permission. Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (20 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is acknowledged based on evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant B.