The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts (except for the remaining part of the case 2020 high-level 932) (1) 2018 high-level 1786 waste disposal, the volume of waste dumped by Defendant A, which was dried from Defendant Q, does not reach 930 tons, and the volume of waste dumped by Defendant A, includes the volume of waste dumped by other transport engineers.

(2) As to the running of an unauthorized waste treatment business without permission 2020 high-level 8, the Defendant was only carrying part of the wastes and introducing transportation to other engineers, and there was no specific conspiracy about AY’s BF unauthorized waste treatment business or any operation thereof as a business.

B) The punishment sentenced by the judgment of the court below of the first instance on the unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) against Defendant A is too unreasonable. 2) Defendant Q1’s sentence (six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the first and second crimes in the market, and two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes in the ruling) imposed on Defendant Q Q A is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the unauthorized Dumping of waste under Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below of the second instance, the part of Paragraph 1 of the crime inundation No. 1 of the judgment of the court below is not a transport of waste by the defendant A, but a transport by another driver.

(2) As to the illegal dumping of wastes in each subparagraph of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the holding, there is no fact that Defendant A instructed or interfered with the carriage of waste to I, and only requested L to transport the transport date, and there is no fact that Defendant A directly instructed L to commit waste disposal.

B) The punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, and 160 hours of community service order) imposed on Defendant A by the lower court of inappropriate sentencing is too unreasonable. 2) The said punishment imposed on Defendant A by the lower court of the second instance by the prosecutor’s judgment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the defendant A shall be rendered ex officio (for the defendant A), respectively.