2. In full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, was sufficiently proven to the extent that the Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, brought the pigs excreta generated from the Defendant’s farm livestock shed on October 2016, into a treatment facility, through plastic pipes installed on the instant farm site, without flowing it into the treatment facility, to the nearby farm waterway, which is a public water area.

It is difficult to see

In light of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges, on October 18, 2016, based on the following: (a) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor at the lower court was found not guilty of the instant charges; and (b) the statement at G’s trial court, the date the prosecutor submitted at the trial on October 18, 2016, along with the weather materials submitted by the prosecutor at the trial; and (c) the Defendant, on October 2016, through plastic pipes installed on the instant farm site, discharged excreta into public waters without flowing excreta into the treatment facilities, by discharging excreta into neighboring agricultural waterways through a plastic pipe installed at the instant farm site, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and thus, the prosecutor.