The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles) is that Defendant A, who is an employee of a measurement agency for air pollutants measuring business, made it difficult to believe that Defendant A actually measured the instant incineration without recognizing whether the F incineration facility 1 (hereinafter “the instant incineration”) was operated, and that there is a significant difference between the measurement result in the case where the air exhausters are operated in a normal operation due to the suspension of operation due to the instant incineration and the measurement result in the case where the air exhausters are operated normally, Defendant A, who is an employee of the measurement agency, was aware of the problem due to the instant incineration; Defendant A, who is an employee of the measurement agency, made a statement to the effect that Defendant A voluntarily made a false statement with the result of the measurement of the instant incineration; Defendant A made a false statement to the effect that he/she arbitrarily made a false statement on the result of the measurement of the instant incineration; Defendant A’s failure to actually measure the instant incineration or made a false statement as if it was operated differently from the actual measurement result; Defendant A’s willful negligence can also be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the facts by finding Defendant A and its employer not guilty of all the facts charged of this case against Defendant B.

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that Defendant A did not measure air pollutants against the instant incineration solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

In addition to the facts charged, it is difficult to recognize that the temperature, concentration, and speed of the incineration of this case was falsely recorded in the atmosphere measurement record book as stated in the facts charged.

It is difficult to recognize, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The circumstances revealed by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court are as follows.