The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. From October 30, 2014 to November 23, 2014, the Defendants did not objectively prove that the contamination level of the surface soil on the top floor (hereinafter “the surface soil of this case”) which was transported from the J storage site to the site for construction for the construction for the construction for the construction for the construction for the construction for the construction for the construction for the construction for the construction for the construction for the J storage site (hereinafter “the storage site”) exceeded the soil environment preservation Act and the soil contamination level as set out in the attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the entire site for the construction for the J construction site (the part excluding the enemy head and the site for the construction for the construction, and the above site hereinafter “J site”) was above the above criteria, or that it was sufficiently proven that there was sufficient doubt as to whether the soil of this case brought entirely into the J site.

It is difficult to see it.

② At the time when the Defendants transported the land of this case from the yard to the site for the construction of a place of storage, the above site was in the state of land category under the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of spatial Information, and thus, the soil environment preservation Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which differently prescribe the standards for soil contamination based on land category, cannot be deemed as soil contamination under the said Act.

③ The Defendants’ act of transporting the topsoil of this case does not constitute “the act of discharging or discharging soil contamination in the course of storage, transportation, purification, etc.” under Article 15-4 subparag. 2 of the Soil Environment Conservation Act.

④ The instant topsoil is merely an aggregate and does not constitute soil, and is not subject to the Soil Environment Preservation Act.

(5) The Soil Environment Conservation Act comprehensively delegates the criteria for determining whether or not soil is contaminated to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and does not specifically define the meaning of “discharge or leakage” which is the core concept of the offense.