The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 2 Subparag. 11 of the Clean Air Conservation Act, Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 3-1 of the attached Table 3-1 of the same Act, are as follows.

B. (1) The lower court acquitted Defendant A of this part of the charges, even though Defendant A fully recognized the fact that he/she installed and operated air pollutants emission facilities without permission from the competent authority, on the ground that the “building facilities with a volume of at least five cubic meters” as prescribed in 26-f) constitutes air pollutants under the Clean Air Conservation Act. Accordingly, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of this part of the charges. The summary of the charges of this case (not guilty part) was erroneous in matters of mistake of facts. Defendant A was the representative director of the B corporation, and Defendant B corporation for the purpose of the flame retardation treatment execution business. A. Although Defendant A obtained permission from the Mayor/Do Governor or reported to the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the lower court did not report to the competent authority at the above B corporation located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, on June 2009, the Defendant installed one building facility equivalent to the volume of 11.47 cubic meters, which is air pollutants to the extent that the Defendant used the foregoing facilities to prove the air pollutants in question.

For the reason that this part of the facts charged was acquitted.

4. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the prosecutor.