The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A corporation shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

Defendant

Co., Ltd.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds of appeal, the Defendants’ violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act and the Prevention of Malodor Act continued in this frame. ① Defendant A received a telephone report from ordinary employees; ② Inasmuch as air pollution prevention facilities and the occurrence of more than the circulation pumps (hereinafter “instant pumps”) that supply absorption amount to the “facilities due to absorption” (hereinafter “prevention facilities”), which are air pollution prevention facilities, is significant circumstances, the Defendants A neglected the operation of the instant pumps, and neglected the operation of the said plastic facilities with knowledge of the suspension of operation of the instant preventive facilities.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor, at the trial of the party, maintained the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged, and added each of the facts charged against Defendant A, to “the factory head E and B employees of the company with no name (the changed facts charged are as stated in the separate facts charged)” (the changed facts charged are as stated in the separate facts charged), and the following facts charged are added to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) as the preliminary facts charged.

However, this court permitted the defendant A to be tried on the other hand, while this court judged the defendant B not guilty of the primary facts charged and found the defendant B guilty of the ancillary facts charged, only the previous primary facts charged.