All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Defendant A’s judgment on Defendant A’s appeal filed a petition of appeal on October 13, 2015; Defendant A failed to file a lawful statement of grounds for appeal within the submission period for filing a petition of appeal on October 26, 2015; Defendant A did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal even after receiving the notification of receipt of the receipt of the notification of receipt of the trial records on October 26, 2015; Defendant A did not state the grounds for appeal; and Defendant A’s claim on the grounds of appeal submitted after

Therefore, a decision to dismiss an appeal filed by a defendant A pursuant to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act should be made, but as long as a decision is rendered on the appeal filed by the defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "defendant Co., Ltd.") with regard to the appeal filed by the defendant B Co., Ltd.

2. Judgment on the appeal by the defendant company

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles were ordered by the competent authority to dispose of the remaining wastes of the instant land four times, and the Defendant Company faithfully performed this order. Nevertheless, the competent authority again issued an order to take measures to dispose of the wastes of the entire instant land, which is inappropriate on the ground that it does not clearly state whether the wastes buried in the instant land relate to the Defendant Company or not, the disposal standards and scope thereof, etc. The Defendant Company was waiting for an answer after raising an issue to the competent authority to clarify it. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant Company failed to comply with the instant order to take measures. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant Company guilty of the facts charged on the Defendant Company by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles. (2) The lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 3,00,000) against the Defendant Company claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

(b) judgment 1 mistake of facts.