The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and Defendant C Co., Ltd.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the records of this case, Defendant A (Non-Submission of Statement of Reasons for Appeal) filed an appeal against the lower judgment on November 11, 2019, but Defendant A did not submit the statement of reasons for appeal within the due deadline for submitting the statement of reasons for appeal despite being served with the notification of the receipt of the notification of reasons for appeal on December 4, 2019, and the petition of appeal does not contain any reasons for appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the records, the reasons for ex officio investigation cannot be found.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part not guilty against the Defendants in the judgment of the lower court) Defendant A is Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”).

2) As the actual representative of the instant case, the instant order to take measures as indicated in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “instant order to take measures”).

However, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on the ground that Defendant A did not correspond to the person subject to the instant order to take measures. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On July 26, 2017, Defendant A was found to have kept approximately 900 tons of waste, such as waste synthetic resin and scrap metal, in violation of the waste disposal standards at C Co., Ltd. located in Yangju-si, and failed to comply with the instant order to remove the said waste from the Yangju market by September 14, 2018, even though around August 9, 2018, Defendant C was issued the instant order to take measures for waste disposal. (2) Defendant C was a corporation established for the purpose of waste disposal business, and the representative of Defendant C did not comply with the order to take measures for waste disposal as prescribed in paragraph (1).

(b).