The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the violation of the Wastes Control Act (A) The court below found that the Defendant discharged the water from the process of crushinging food wastes into the sewage culvert through pipes connected to the scraper. However, without determining whether the water was discharged, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was a lack of proof as to the quantity of the water produced in the indictment, and there was an error of misunderstanding the facts.

(B) A public official R in charge of detecting the Defendant’s place of business regarding the discharge of washing water was found guilty on the basis of control process and the Defendant’s employee’s statement, but the lower court rejected it and found the Defendant guilty on only the part of the discharge of washing water, so the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts in this part.

(2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the display portion of the falsified receipts, the defendant and N can be recognized as the fact that the defendant used the forged receipts of this case, and even if not, the defendant can be recognized as having submitted the falsified receipts to the court by using N without knowledge of the fact. However, since the court below acquitted of this part of the facts charged, it erred in the misapprehension of the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and fine of ten million won, probation, community service for 120 hours, and 40 hours of education) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Defendant’s determination of the part of the claim for misunderstanding of facts is based on the remaining materials generated from the crushing of food wastes since the investigative agency, to this court.