All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant facts charged, Defendants 1, misunderstanding the legal principles on the violation of the Waste Management Act, among the instant facts charged, was permitted to engage in development activities for the purpose of creating a site for an aggregate-free site, and was used to produce a filled-up site for industrial wastes through the process of screening and mixing them with earth and sand and restore the waste stone acid by raising it into an waste stone acid. As such, it is possible to treat wastes at a place other than waste disposal facilities pursuant to Article 10 subparag. 2 (a) and subparagraph 2 of attached Table 5-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Waste Management Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 595, Mar. 3, 2015). The fact that the Defendants did not combine industrial wastes, such as inorganic sludge, with soil and sand at a place other than waste disposal facilities. However, this is merely limited to “treatment” that did not comply with the standards for recycling, and thus, it was merely a “regnded” itself.

As such, the lower court convicted the Defendants of violating the Waste Management Act, although it cannot be punished pursuant to Article 65 Subparag. 1 and Article 13(1) of the former Waste Management Act (amended by Act No. 13038, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter “Waste Management Act”), it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 50 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 20 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of the legal principles

A. The summary of the violation of the Waste Management Act among the facts charged in the instant case was established by Defendant A, around November 2007, as a limited company G (hereinafter “G”) with the business purpose of recycling wastes from the Dolsan City F for the purpose of recycling wastes from around June 30, 2014, and Defendant B was in office as the representative director from around June 30, 2014 (including subsequent participation in the management of the company); and Defendant B, from around November 2007, when performing business and field management duties, from around July 1, 2014 to the present G representative director from around July 1, 2014.