beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Of the crimes No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the attached list of crimes shall be applied.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the operation of an unauthorized waste disposal business), wastes collected by the Defendant are not subject to permission for waste disposal business, and are merely subject to reporting on waste disposal under Article 46(1)2 of the Wastes Control Act. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the Defendant constitutes a person subject to permission for waste disposal business is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In the statement of grounds of appeal submitted on November 26, 2019, the Defendant’s defense counsel of Article 2 and 4 of the Attached Table Nos. 3 in the annexed Table Nos. 2 and 3 in the list of crimes as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, but the quantity of wastes charged by the Defendant 3 is 638 tons, and it is apparent that this part of the judgment below is erroneous in light of
Although the amount of wastes collected by the Defendant is much less than the quantity of wastes that were found guilty, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty as to this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (for the crimes No. 3 and No. 4 of the annexed Table No. 3 and No. 4 of the annexed Table No. 1 of the crime in the market, 6 months of imprisonment, and 2 years of imprisonment for the remaining crimes in the judgment) is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor 1) based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (not guilty part in the original judgment) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant collected wastes of approximately 135 tons and approximately 638 tons of each of the annexed Table of the crime in the judgment of the lower court, such as the written indictment, but the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.
2. The lower court’s sentencing sentence is too excessive.