2. B

3. C.

Law Firm E (Defendant B)

[Defendant-Appellee]

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day.

An order to pay an amount equivalent to each of the above fines shall be issued.

Defendant A is a regular report of H, a corporation operating a public sewage treatment plant entrusted by G City from January 1, 2013, and is in charge of managing the affairs of G public sewage treatment plants, II public sewage treatment plants, and J public sewage treatment plants. Defendant B is the head of the above company, who is in charge of managing the water quality of G public sewage treatment plants, and Defendant C is the director in charge of managing the water quality of the above

No person shall intentionally fail to operate an automatic water quality measuring device (hereinafter referred to as "Tms") or fail to conduct a normal measurement, or make a false measurement.

On the other hand, G public sewage treatment plants [the final discharge outlet of public sewage treatment plants] are used as administrative data to determine whether the measured value of the water pollutants transmitted as above exceeds the permissible level by treating the water pollutants concentration among the sewage discharged by G public sewage treatment plants, II public sewage treatment plants, and J public sewage treatment plants as the concentration of water pollutants among the sewage discharged by G public sewage treatment plants, I, and J public sewage treatment plants, by automatically collecting the specific quantity of the discharged sewage and attaching TRs automatically to automatically transmitting the measured value by each time zone to the KON Control Center, barring special circumstances, such as Tms malfunction operation.

The Defendants conspired to have the TPP measurement value lower than the actual concentration of water pollutants transmitted to the KNF Control Center by arbitrarily manipulating the value of Tms to the extent that the concentration of water pollutants discharged from a public sewage treatment plant, a public sewage treatment plant, or a public sewage treatment plant exceeds the permissible discharge level, and is likely to have an impact on the performance rate to be paid to all employees of the KNE due to the performance rating or personnel management rating for all employees working at each sewage treatment plant, or due to the negative impact on the performance rate to be paid by all employees of the KNE. In general management evaluation of the KNE, the Defendants are likely to automatically measure the concentration of water pollutants in discharged sewage and the TR measurement value for automatically measuring the concentration of water pollutants in discharged sewage exceeds the permissible discharge level.

In accordance with the above public offering, L L was working on duty at the sewage treatment plant around 04:49 on September 20, 2014, and L was engaged in voluntary manipulation of the total volume of water (T-P) among water pollutants in discharged sewage for 0.37 to 0.108, and was in collusion with 19 workers on duty listed in the attached list of crimes in collusion with 121 times in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of Defendant B and Defendant C

1. Each legal statement of the witness B and C;

1. Each police interrogation protocol on M, N, 0, L, P, Q, R, T, U, V, W, X,Y, Z, AA, AB, and AC;

1. Operating photographs of each automatic water quality measuring instrument;

1. Report on the results of the on-site investigation, details of the change to parity, application of the work order-related statute;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 76 Subparag. 5 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and selection of each fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is based on the following circumstances: (a) the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendants’ status and position, degree of participation, age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; (b) the circumstances after the crime; and (c) the sentencing of similar cases and equity, etc., the sentence

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: A total of 121 times a year over which the crime in the judgment is committed and the quality of the crime is not less than that of the favorable circumstances: A person who has no record of punishment exceeding the same kind of crime and fine.