The judgment below

Of those, the part of conviction against Defendant E and the part of acquittal against Defendant E.

1. The prosecutor's appeal is examined.

The conviction in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge correct doubt as to the facts charged, and if there is no such proof, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's conviction, the conviction may not be judged as guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). Furthermore, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted as the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (1) As to the facts charged against Defendant A, C, and E from Sep. 2008 to Jul. 2, 2010, the water quality pollutants discharged during the discharge period are included in the water pollutants discharged during the discharge period.

(2) The court held that there is no evidence to determine the seal, and held that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the charges of violation of the Act on the Conservation of Water Quality and Aquatic Organisms on March 16, 201, the relevant water quality testing result alone is insufficient to establish the facts charged; and (3) the part of the charges of violation of the Act on the Conservation of Water Quality and Aquatic Organisms pertaining to the primary charges of violation of the Act on the Conservation of Water Quality and Aquatic Organisms, the court did not normally operate the wastewater treatment facilities, such as distilling facilities, etc.

Recognizing that there is a lack of evidence to determine the person, the judgment of the first instance court (Seoul High Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 8112, Busan High Court Decision 2012) was justifiable, the prosecutor did not accept the prosecutor's allegation of the reasons for appeal as to

The grounds of appeal disputing the lower court’s factual recognition are nothing more than that of the lower court’s judgment on the choice of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.