All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In addition to the legislative intent of the Wastes Control Act and the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (hereinafter “Water Quality Ecosystem Act”), the court below determined that the water transfer of this case constitutes wastes provided for in Article 15(1)2 of the Water Quality Conservation Act, in light of the fact that the water transfer of this case appears to have been discharged because it is not necessary for the business activities of the workplace operated by the Defendants, and that the water transfer of this case contains vegetable plic tons and vegetable plic plic tons, which are water pollutants under the Water Quality Ecosystem Act, and that the water pollution was relatively high in the test of the test of foreign substances collected at the place where the water transfer of this case was discharged, and that the water transfer of this case was inappropriate for the form of marine life as a result of the test of sewage on the transfer of this case, and that the water transfer of this case exceeds four times the permissible level.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 15(1)2 of the Water Quality Ecosystem Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.