No business operator or any person who operates prevention facilities shall discharge water pollutants that flow into prevention facilities without passing through the final discharge outlet.

However, around 13:30 on July 25, 2013, the Defendant discharged approximately 0.5 tons of wastewater in a state containing approximately 841 g/liter than 67,386 g/ liter in a state of waste water containing about 841 times the permissible discharge quantity of floating substances, instead of reuse water-quality pollutants generated by washing ready-mixed vehicles in the “E (E)” from the wastewater discharge facilities through retreatment facilities, which are wastewater preventive facilities.

2. Determination

A. Article 38(1)2 of the Act on the Interpretation of Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation prohibits “discharge of water pollutants flowing into preventive facilities without passing through the final discharge outlet.”

Therefore, in the interpretation of the above provision, it is reasonable to view that the defendant can be punished only when there is a "suspect" that discharges water pollutants without going through the final discharge outlet.

B. In the instant case, according to the records, the Defendant’s aforementioned “E State” uses wastewater in which cement products generated by washing ready-mixed vehicles are used to manufacture ready-mixeds by collecting them in a recyclable tank. In the event that such recycling system is normally operated, no wastewater released separately is generated. The recycling system first is the method of using the above wastewater in manufacturing ready-mixeds by gathering the clean-mixed vehicles in the primary tank and automatically transmitting the clean-mixeds to the recycling tank through the operation of the secondary hydro-water tank on July 25, 2013. The secondary hydro-mother, which pumps wastewater around 13:30, from the primary tank, from the first tank to the recycling tank to the recycling tank.