The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below's punishment (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) against the defendant in the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant’s mistake is divided, the buried part is deemed to have been restored to its original state, etc. However, the Defendant had the record of being punished several times of fines due to the violation of the Wastes Control Act, the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, the violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, the violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act, and the violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act, and the frequency of the crime in this case has reached four times, and the number of the crimes in this case has not reached a large number of times, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and the circumstances after the crime

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, the judgment of the court below is clear that the term “the choice of imprisonment” under Articles 63, 8(1) and (2) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 11914, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter “former Wastes Control Act”) and Article 63, 8(1) and (2) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 11914, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter “the former Wastes Control Act”) is a violation of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 12321, Jan. 21, 2014); Articles 63 subparag. 1 and 8(1) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 12321, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter “the former Wastes Control Act”) and “the latter shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure”).