2. The crime of this case is committed by the Defendant’s occupational negligence in the course of discharging approximately 100 liters of static fuel oil from the Defendant’s place of business to another company. The crime of this case is committed against the Defendant who contaminated the water quality environment in light of the legislative intent of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act, which aims to prevent risks to public health and the environment caused by water pollution and properly manage and preserve water quality and aquatic ecosystems in public waters, such as rivers and lakes, and the fact that the leaked static fuel oil is not a large amount, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the above facts are favorable to the above defendant, such as the fact that the defendant fully recognized the crime of this case, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment prior to the crime of this case, and the response work has been made in a timely manner after the accident, and the additional pollution caused by oil outflow has not been made.

In full view of the above favorable circumstances and conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant’s sentence is deemed unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.