The judgment below

This part of the abandonment of duties is reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the abandonment of duties is acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant neglected the duties to supervise the site, but does not abandon his duties.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the part on violation of the former e-mail: a fine of KRW 3 million, and the part on abandonment of duties: a fine of KRW 4 million: the suspended sentence of imprisonment for four months) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts (1) The summary of this part of the facts charged was in charge of the management of DNA sewage from October 201 to June 2012 and the affiliated public official’s waste disposal services for the projects reducing the volume of inflow flow in the DNA sewage treatment plant.

On the other hand, a person who discharges, collects, transports, or disposes of construction wastes shall enter the details of the transfer of construction wastes into an electronic information processing system (hereinafter “the first right system”) whenever discharging, collecting, transporting, or disposing of construction wastes pursuant to Article 18 of the Act on the Promotion of Recycling of Construction Wastes. The purpose of the system is to prevent construction wastes from disposing of illegal construction wastes in a transparent manner by ensuring that the current status of the discharge, collection, transport, and disposal of construction wastes can be grasped in real time.

The Defendant, as a person in charge of the foregoing waste disposal services, should check and supervise the volume of discharged wastes if discharged at the construction site, whether discharged wastes are collected, transported, and disposed of by E Co., Ltd., which entered into a contract, and whether discharged wastes are consistent with the volume of discharged and collected, transported, and disposed of, thereby preventing the Defendant from claiming excessive costs by illegally reclaiming wastes or manipulating discharged quantities in the collecting and transporting company. To this end, the Defendant, as a person who discharges construction wastes in the foregoing system, has the date of waste transfer, measurement, and vehicle number.