The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle) of the facts charged in this case is an exceptional liability of co-defendant A (hereinafter “A”), who is an employee of the defendant, and the defendant has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the pertinent duties to prevent such a violation.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the employee of the Defendant in the Jeonyang-gun C, who is employed by the said company, is an on-site agent who exercises overall control over the field work of “two sections for creating the E Living Zone” located in Sejong-si, which is being constructed by the said company, and the Defendant was a corporation established for the purpose of construction and civil engineering, etc., and reported a dust scattering project to the competent authority on February 19, 2016.

A person who intends to conduct construction business, as a business producing dust emitted from Afugitive (hereinafter referred to as "fugitive dust"), shall take necessary measures to control fugitive dust, such as covering it with a proof cover, when he/she keeps fugitive substances for not less than one day.

Nevertheless, from May 20, 201 to February 24, 2017, A did not take necessary measures to control fugitive dust because it does not cover a dust-proof cover, which is a facility to control fugitive dust, which occurs while keeping earth and sand in the construction site and around approximately 472 cubic meters from around the 472 cubic meters.

B. The Defendant above.

A, who is an employee of the defendant at the time and place specified in the paragraph, will be above the defendant's work.

It did not take necessary measures to control fugitive dust, such as the statement in the port.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized.

1...