수질및수생태계보전에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) is the fact that the Defendant has established the drainage equipment in the non-determination structure of the instant case as stated in the judgment of the court below, but the said drainage equipment is necessary for cleaning or remodeling the non-determination structure, and is not installed for the purpose of discharging wastewater.
In addition, there is no fact that water pollutants were discharged through the above drainage outlet, and the defendant violated Article 76 subparag. 3 and Article 38 subparag. 1 subparag. 2 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Organisms Preservation Act (hereinafter “Water Quality and Aquatic Organisms Preservation Act”).
subsection (b) of this section.
2. Determination
A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant was almost identical to the foregoing argument, but the lower court rejected the said argument on the grounds that detailed reasons were stated from No. 3 to No. 4 of the lower judgment’s sentence, to No. 11.
B. (1) In addition to prohibiting “the act of discharging water pollutants discharged from the discharge facilities without flowing them into the prevention facilities or installing facilities that can discharge water pollutants without flowing them into the prevention facilities” under Article 38(1)2 of the Act, the relevant provisions and legislative purport of the relevant Act and the Act on the Preservation of Water Quality and Living Conditions (i) prohibits “the act of discharging water pollutants flowing into the prevention facilities without passing through the final discharge outlet or installing facilities that can discharge water pollutants without passing through the final discharge outlet” under Article 38(1)1 of the same Act.
The purport of these provisions is to interpret that “the act of installing facilities that can discharge water pollutants flowing into prevention facilities without going through the final outlet,” in addition to the actual discharge of water pollutants, is to prevent the act of installing facilities.”
(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the water pollution prevention facilities of this case are the water tank, the water bombation tank, and the water bombing tank.