Defendants are not guilty.

1. Facts charged;

A. Defendant A is a person in charge of on-site management supervision as a field manager of a stock company B.

No person shall, without justifiable grounds, leak or throw away earth and sand which makes the concentration of suspended substances before the inflow of earth and sand from the concentration of suspended substances after the inflow of earth and sand into a public water zone less than 100 meters per liter.

Nevertheless, on September 23, 2016, the Defendant leaked water to the public water zone through a water pumping apparatus (1.5 meters in depth and 10 meters in width) generated in the course of installing a water pipeline for industrial use on a river with a concentration of floating material 0.4mg/L prior to the introduction of earth and sand into a site near Sincheon-si, Macheon-si, and a river with a concentration of floating material 0.4mg/L).

B. Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of comprehensive construction, such as steel reinforced concrete.

The defendant, who is the head of the site, leaked to the public water zone in relation to the defendant's business at the above time and place.

2. Determination

A. Article 78 Subparag. 4 of the former Water Quality and Water Quality Conservation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13879, Jan. 27, 2016) provides for criminal punishment against “a person who has leaked or dumped soil or sand above the standard prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment in a public water area” in violation of Article 15(1)4 of the said Act, and Article 81 of the said Act provides both punishment for corporations, etc.

According to the interpretation of the above penal provision, Defendant A may be punished in cases where Defendant A has intentionally committed such an act with the intention to leak or abandon soil and sand above the standard prescribed by Ordinance of Ministry of Environment in the public waters.

It is reasonable to view it.

B. In the instant case, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, ① Defendant A served as an employee of Defendant B as the site warden of the instant construction project, and was suspended at the time of September 23, 2016, and ②.