A. The lower court convicted the Defendants, who established and operated an integrated mountain power system, on the ground that they did not individually install the integrating electric power system for each preventive facility.

However, there is no provision that each preventive facility should be installed individually, and even if such provision is interpreted as such, this case constitutes an exception to the installation of a hostile power meter in this case, and since the defendants have installed and used an integrated mountain power meter by designing and constructing the environment experts, it constitutes a case where there is no possibility of expectation of a legitimate act or lawful act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Clean Air Conservation Act (hereinafter “Act”) was established for the purpose of preventing danger and injury to public health or the environment due to air pollution, and managing and preserving the atmospheric environment in an appropriate and sustainable manner, thereby enabling all citizens to live in a healthy and pleasant environment (Article 1), Articles 23 and 26 of the Act stipulate that a person who has obtained permission to install emission facilities shall, in principle, install air pollution preventive facilities (hereinafter “preventive facilities”) in order to ensure that pollutants emitted from emission facilities meet the permissible emission levels when he/she installs emission facilities.

On the other hand, for the proper operation of emission facilities and preventive facilities, Article 32 of the Act imposes on the business operator the obligation to install measuring devices to confirm whether pollutants emitted from emission facilities meet the permissible emission levels.