2. The Defendants recognized all of the instant crime; Defendant A reported the installation of wastewater discharge facilities on August 6, 2013 after the instant crime; however, the Defendants discharged wastewater from January 201 to July 16, 2013 into the sea without filing a report on the installation of wastewater discharge facilities. The period of discharge as mentioned above is a relatively long-term period of up to one year and six months; Defendant A had the records of punishment for the crime of violating the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act and the Clean Air Conservation Act; Defendant A had the records of punishment several times due to the fact that there was a violation of the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act and the Clean Air Conservation Act; in light of all the circumstances of sentencing, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to deem that the sentence of the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the court below's "Application of the statutes"

1. The phrase “the choice of fine” as stated in the corresponding Article of the Criminal Act and the “the choice of punishment” shall be deemed to read “the choice of imprisonment”.