1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant B and C, the argument that the lower court erred in violation of the empirical rule, violation of the rules of evidence, and deviation from the discretion of sentencing constitutes an unfair argument of sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair in this case where Defendant B and C have been sentenced to minor punishment is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant L, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted Defendant L of violating the Act on the Preservation of Water Quality and Aquatic Water Quality of the instant facts charged on the ground of its stated reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court was justifiable to have acquitted the Defendants of all of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the Defendants violated the Sewerage Act, and the Defendants’ Water Quality and A’s violation of the Act on the Conservation of Water Quality and Their A’s Birth, or the crime was not proven. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding