2. The judgment of the court below seems to have led to the crime of this case while the defendant made a faithful effort for the rehabilitation of the company of this case after he was appointed as the manager of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the company of this case"), who is a rehabilitation company, and he made efforts to remove oil leaked after the crime of this case. The defendant made efforts to eliminate oil leaked after the crime of this case, and the defendant has dependents, such as old mother mother, etc., favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the Defendant had a duty of care to thoroughly check the facility and prevent the outflow of BC oil in the auxiliary tank through air outlet, the Defendant’s negligence in the course of performing its duty to inspect the facility, and caused BC oil to flow out through air outlet or to flow out BC oil in the vicinity of the place of business ( particularly, the Defendant, who was in charge of the maintenance and repair of the boiler from a specialized boiler company, was changed to the company’s own management on the ground of cost reduction, but the said accident was changed after the change of the main body of maintenance and repair, in light of the legislative purport of the Water Quality and Water Quality Conservation Act, such as preventing harm to public water quality and the environment caused by water pollution and properly managing and preserving the water quality and the water pollution of public waters, such as rivers, lakes, marshess, etc., in view of the legislative intent of the Water Quality and Water Quality Conservation Act.

The above favorable circumstances have already been fully reflected in the sentencing judgment of the court below.

In addition, in full view of all the circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime.