The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant embling was produced by Defendant B Company as a patented manufacturing method, such as screening, crushing, and crushing, and going through chemical processes. The Defendants obtained environmental certification from the Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute for the instant embation materials, as a result of the analysis of the examination conducted by the Ulsan Metropolitan City Health and Environment Institute and the Korea Chemical Convergence Institute for the Examination of Chemical Convergence, the Defendants did not have any items exceeding the standards for waste designation or did not detect any items designated as waste at all. As a result of an inquiry into the Ministry of Environment with regard to the Ministry of Environment, the instant embling materials was sent a reply that the instant embling materials do not constitute a waste. As such, the instant embling materials are not not subject to waste recycling report, and it cannot be deemed that there was a criminal intent against the Defendants under the above circumstances.

In addition, in light of the legal principles, the fill-up of this case has lost the nature of waste to the extent that it is objectively approved in light of social norms as necessary for human life and business activities, and the Ministry of Environment also interprets the fill-up of materials certified with eco-label as a product, not a waste, and there is controversy over the scope of recycled products in accordance with the person responsible for the environment, such as interpreting the scope of recycled products as a product, which is not a waste, thereby making the type of waste and recycling methods clear, thereby amending the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act, and thus, punishing the defendants' acts

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the substantial representative who comprehensively manages the overall business place of Defendant B, and Defendant B is the waste company.