A. The occurrence of flying dust in this case by misapprehending the factual misunderstanding and the legal principles is due to the fact that E. E. E. E. E. A., a subcontractor, was engaged in work without any notification on Sundays, and removed cryp residues in an abnormal manner. Thus, the Defendants cannot be held liable for such removal.

However, the lower court found all of the facts charged in the instant case guilty, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the atmospheric environment conservation law, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, namely, the Defendant A, as a person responsible for the construction site of this case, should install facilities to control fugitive dust or take necessary measures, and thus, he did not work at the construction site.

In light of the fact that there is no change in installing facilities to restrain flying dust or taking necessary measures, and there was a circumstance that the construction was delayed at the time of the instant case and that Defendant A was fully aware of this fact, the fact that the Defendants committed the crime in the judgment of the Defendants can be sufficiently recognized.

The decision was determined.

2) The following circumstances, which were duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court’s evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, were, in other words, the completion of the structural frame and the removal of the structural frame installed at the site of the Defendant B Company. The date of completion agreed at the time of the instant case was imminent, and Defendant B Company was the date of completion.