The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The result of the leakage inspection, which was the premise of the instant corrective order, was merely inappropriate for the part of the oil pipeline facilities operated by the Defendant, and it was not confirmed whether the said facilities actually leak pollutants. Thus, the instant corrective order is null and void as it violated the Acts and subordinate statutes, and therefore, the Defendant did not comply with the instant corrective order.

Even if it does not constitute a violation of soil environment preservation law.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (hereinafter “the allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles”). 2) In order to issue the corrective order of this case, the head of Seongdong-gu Office did not notify the Defendant of the method of appeal, such as filing an administrative trial or administrative litigation. Thus, the corrective order of this case should be revoked illegally, and the Defendant did not comply with the above corrective order.

Even if it does not constitute a violation of soil environment preservation law.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (hereinafter “the allegation of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to ②.3), even if the corrective order of this case is valid, the Defendant suspended the gas station, and made efforts to prevent soil contamination by undergoing a soil contamination inspection. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (hereinafter “misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles”). (b) The sentence (700,000 won) which the lower court rendered unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.