1. As to the facts charged by the prosecutor that the defendants (the representative director of the defendant 2 company) installed five power-drivens in the stone plant of Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as omission) with wastewater discharge facilities at the stone plant of this case without obtaining permission from December 20, 1979 to June 17, 1982, the court below determined that the above charges of this case constitute an emission facility under Article 2 subparag. 10 of the former Environmental Conservation Act (Act No. 3078 of Dec. 31, 1977), Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 4 of the same Enforcement Rule of the same Act does not include the above emission facility as an emission facility (Ga), gas, dust, exhaust gas, and vibration, and that Article 15 of the same Act does not constitute an emission facility under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree even if the defendants obtained permission from the above Minister of Health and Welfare for the installation of the above emission facility (the above part of the facility is not sufficient to obtain permission from the Minister of Health and Welfare).

2. However, according to Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Act and Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person who intends to obtain permission to install pollutants emission facilities shall obtain permission to install the above emission facilities by submitting an application for the installation of the above emission facilities, along with a detailed statement of installation of the emission facilities, the degree of process, the quantity of raw materials used, the quantity of products, the quantity of pollutants emitted, the installation of pollutants emission prevention facilities, and the detailed statement of the installation of pollutants emission prevention facilities. In light of the above provisions, even if the facilities are installed, if the pollutants are classified differently as many pollutants, the installation permission shall be obtained for each of the classified pollutants emission facilities, and the permission shall not affect the remaining pollutants only based on the application period for permission for the discharge portion of one of the multiple pollutants emission facilities.

Therefore, in order to ensure that the above installation permit is effective with respect to all kinds of pollutants, it is required to obtain one installation permit comprehensively by satisfying the requirements according to the application such as attaching a detailed statement of installation of emission preventive facilities to each of the pollutants classified as the discharge quantity. Thus, according to the facts established by the court below in this case, it constitutes the pollutants emission facilities of the above (b) and (c). The defendants are required to apply for the installation permit with respect to the noise and vibration emission in the above (c) (excluding the wastewater emission part of the above (c) (excluding the wastewater emission part), and the defendants are required to apply for the installation permit with respect to the noise and vibration emission part of the above (c) (excluding the wastewater emission part of the above (c). Thus, the above installation and operation of the mama, which is a pollutant emission facility, without permission for the wastewater emission part

Therefore, the original judgment, which has different opinion, should be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the permission for the installation of emission facilities as stipulated in Article 15 of the same Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)