The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the mixture of food waste, livestock excreta, and fire fighters, which were dumped in the B, E (hereinafter “instant land”), is sufficiently well-founded for a period of ten months or more to one year, and thus, it does not constitute waste under the Wastes Control Act, as it does not constitute a waste, inasmuch as the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the legal principles is able to use it as a compost objectively until it was abandoned on the said land.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the term "waste" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Wastes Control Act means waste, materials, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste acid, dead bodies of animals, etc., which are no longer necessary for human life or business activities. Although materials which were no longer needed for business activities at the workplace concerned are supplied as materials for recycling, it does not lose the nature of such materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do70, Jun. 1, 2001). However, in a case where a person supplied with such materials manufactures finished products after processing them through crushing, sorting, mixing, mixing, and lodging, if such materials did not yet reach a finished product in light of the intention of the person who is supplied with the materials, and the nature and nature of such materials, if it reaches the extent that it is objectively necessary for human life or business activities through the above processing process, such materials should not be deemed as having ceased to be a finished product for manufacturing purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du2616, supra.).