The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that plastic recycling materials collected and transported by the defendant can be recycled, so it cannot be viewed as wastes.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the said recycled raw materials constitute wastes.

2. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Wastes Control Act defines wastes as “waste, annual waste, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste alcars, animal carcasses, etc. that are not necessary for human life or business activities.” Article 2 subparag. 7 of the same Act provides for recycling as “reusing or recycling wastes, or making wastes reusable or reusable or reusable.”

Therefore, waste is a concept that includes both recyclable and non-reusable substances, and is not included in the category of waste solely on the ground that it is possible to recycle.

No interpretation can be interpreted.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the Jinjin Co., Ltd. is a place of business that installs and operates discharging facilities pursuant to the Air Quality Conservation Act, and recognizes the fact that it is a commercial waste produced and transported by the defendant, such as spaul, spafer, spafer cleaning, disuse materials, etc. produced and transported by the defendant (the 10th, 64th, and 77-79th of the investigation record). Therefore, the court below’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.