The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 67 of the Wastes Control Act provides that a person who actually commits an act as well as an employer constitutes an actual offender who is punished under the above provision, as a joint penal provision. The lower court, without determining whether the Defendant is an actual offender, rendered a judgment of not guilty on the ground that the Defendant was not an employer, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding facts.

2. As to the facts charged in this case, the court below charged the defendant with the applicable provisions of Article 66 subparagraph 4 and Article 17 (4) of the Wastes Control Act, not charged with the defendant with regard to the facts charged in this case by applying the provisions of Article 67 as joint penal provisions, but with regard to the applicable provisions of Article 66 subparagraph 4 of the same Article. Article 66 subparagraph 4 of the Wastes Control Act provides that "the person who discharges, transports, or disposes of controlled wastes without obtaining confirmation or confirmation on modification under Article 17 (3) or (4) of the same Act or differently from the contents of confirmation or confirmation on modification," and Article 17 (3) of the same Act provides that "the person who discharges controlled wastes" and Article 17 (4) of the same Act provides "the person who has received confirmation under Article 66 (4) of the same Act, who is the other person under Article 17 (4) of the same Act, shall be punished under Article 66 (4) of the same Act, and the defendant shall not be punished under Article 6 (6) of the Wastes Control Act.

The judgment of the court below is closely examined by comparing it with the evidence records, and the scope of the court's trial is in principle.