The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and by a fine of 100,000,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s mistake of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (related to the violation of the Waste Management Act)’s aggregate buried in the area where the instant aggregate was collected (hereinafter “the instant aggregate”) is recycled recycled in accordance with the relevant statutes, and thus does not constitute commercial wastes.

Nevertheless, the court below found the aggregate of this case guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that it is a waste. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

In light of various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In light of the various sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

The judgment (related to the violation of the Waste Management Act) was made by the Defendant, who was employed as the representative director of the B corporation for the purpose of collecting aggregate from April 2, 2003 to July 20, 2009 for the interim disposal of construction waste, etc., of the facts charged, the Defendant was required to extract aggregate from April 2, 2009 to July 20, 2009, at least 29,600 cubic meters of the permitted volume, which is a total of 8,454 square meters of aggregate extraction permitted in Ansan-si and Ansan-si from July 20, 209.

Accordingly, from April 5, 2009 to July 20, 2009, the Defendant transported industrial wastes, such as waste concrete, etc., at least 6,765 tons stored at the disposal process, to dump trucks, and buried them at the above aggregate extraction site, rather than waste disposal facilities approved by the relevant authorities or reported.

In the lower court’s determination, the Defendant argued to the same effect as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, cannot be deemed as a circular aggregate meeting the quality standards for the aggregate in question, and even if it is difficult to view

Even in the case, the aggregate reclamation area of this case shall be located in the Nakdong River Zone.