A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of facts, Defendant Company did not use algoriic ingredients, and Defendant Company knew or could not know the fact that algori was included in the outflow of Defendant Company. Defendant Company was found to have obtained permission for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities for the tea facilities within the scope of its permissible level. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding of facts.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the Defendants’ respective fines of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances revealed by the court below, namely, ① the defendants' act of obtaining permission for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities constitutes a three-dimensional facility, and even if the leakage of the defendant company is likely to include cryp material in natural ecosystem, the cryp material was not entirely detected in the water level (25th page of the evidence record) before the mixture of the leakage of the defendant company (the 60th page of the evidence record). Further, the defendants asserted that "the concentration of cryp material discovered from the leakage of wastewater discharge facilities after obtaining permission for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities is within its permissible level." However, the defendant company's act of obtaining permission for the installation of wastewater discharge facilities constitutes an excellent facility in the discharge of wastewater discharge facilities in relation to the waste discharge facilities from the defendant company, even if the defendants' assertion that the leakage of the defendant company could comply with the permission for the installation of waste discharge facilities."