The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) In relation to waste speculation, the Defendant merely intended to collect waste concrete as an access road to a construction site by using it on the floor, and did not intend to illegally dumping.

In addition, in relation to the reclamation of waste, the Defendant did not instruct the Defendant to reclaim waste generated from the process of the interior works of the Cart and the removal of the walk raising company (hereinafter “instant construction”) as stated in the facts charged in relation to the reclamation of waste by using the aggregate as a cover to create access roads to the construction site.

3) Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) First of all, we examine the argument that the Defendant did not have any intention to dumped wastes or used them for the creation of access roads is most aggregate and waste concrete is not only part of the aggregate.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can recognize the fact that part of the waste concrete generated from the construction work of this case has been sub-consumed at the entrance of the construction site of this case.

However, according to the above evidence and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court, ① on April 22, 2015, public officials in charge of Jeju viewing visited the construction site of this case for the purpose of maintaining access roads, and confirmed that the substance stored on the road constitutes illegally used and disposed of for the purpose of maintaining access roads. The weight corresponds to 117.6 tons; ② A witness R of the trial court around January 20, 2015, “E would build a temporary road with aggregate and waste concrete for the purpose of maintaining the access roads.”

The defendant suggested that he was given approval on the condition of restitution, and at the time, the O was in his place.