All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal falls under the wastes under the Wastes Control Act, the goods processed by the waste master as stated in the facts charged by the Defendants using the waste master company (hereinafter “the instant recycled aggregate”), the lower court determined that the instant recycled aggregate was a kind of raw material and thereby acquitted the Defendants on the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendants did not enter the matters concerning the transfer and receipt of wastes into the electronic information processing program while discharging and disposing of industrial wastes. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on wastes under the Wastes Control Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is the representative director of Company B, and Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) is a corporation established for the purpose of waste treatment and transportation business.

1) A person discharging and disposing of industrial wastes of Defendant A ought to enter the details of waste delivery and acceptance into the electronic information processing program pursuant to Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment whenever discharging and disposing of them. Nevertheless, Defendant A classified and processed waste masters supplied from solar metals, etc. in Yasan-si, Inc., Ltd. and Yasan-si, and made them in an interim disposal state, and made them into a shipbuilding concrete industry corporation (hereinafter “manufacturing concrete”).

(2) Although the Defendant supplied 216t to the electronic information processing program, he did not enter the content thereof into the electronic information processing program. From that time to October 26, 2012, the Defendant treated 11,262,584g intermediate waste disposal products, which were the intermediate waste, and did not enter into the electronic information processing program. (2) Defendant B Co., Ltd., a representative director, did not enter the details of the transfer and receipt of waste in the electronic information processing program as above with respect to the Defendant’s business at the date, time, place, and place specified in the foregoing paragraph (1).

(b).