The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that E makes a statement at an investigative agency consistent with the defendant's defense counsel, but in the court of the court below, it is difficult to believe the statement as it is, in light of the fact that E is an employee of the company that is the head of the factory.

In addition, even if based on the above E's statement, if the pipes were completely cut off, smelling would seriously occur, and thus, it did not know the fact of escape.

The Defendant’s defense of “” is more and more difficult to believe.

However, despite the statement consistent with the facts charged in this case by the enforcement officer, the court below acquitted the above facts charged on the basis of the defendant's statements made by employees E without credibility, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a factory head who exercises overall control over the field affairs of D, a gold heat processing and wholesale business entity located in Ansan-si, Nowon-si.

around 1:00 on May 30, 2016, the Defendant operated an industrial effluent facility (capacity 2.4 cubic meters), which is an air pollutant emission facility, at the above D’s place of business, and operated the air pollutants in a state where the pipes connected to the ice concentrating power plant (capacity 280 cubic meters/divided), which is a preventive facility, were broken away, and air pollutants were not flown into the preventive facility.

B. In light of the facts charged under the applicable law as stated in the instant indictment, the lower court determined that the instant indictment was intended to operate preventive facilities while operating air pollutants, or to discharge air pollutants emitted from emission facilities by mixing air with air to lower the pollution level. Therefore, in order to be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not operate preventive facilities or mixing air pollutants emitted from emission facilities with air pollutants.