The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

Article 64(2) of the former Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 11979, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter “former Water Quality Ecosystem Act”) provides that “where a wastewater treatment business operator falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Minister of Environment may revoke his/her registration or order him/her to suspend his/her business for a fixed period not exceeding six months,” and one of the following subparagraphs provides that “where a wastewater treatment business operator falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she may revoke his/her registration or order him/her to suspend his

In addition, Article 71 of the former Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act provides that "the criteria for administrative dispositions against violations of this Act or any order issued under this Act shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment," and according to delegation, Article 105(1) [Attachment 22] 2(g) [Attachment 22] 2(g) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 543, Jan. 29, 2014] (hereinafter “instant Rule Provisions”).

In relation to the "cases of installing pipelines not necessary for wastewater treatment", the provisions stipulate that the revocation of registration in the case of the first violation shall be made for three months of business suspension and in the case of the second violation.

In light of the legislative intent and language of these regulations, delegation of Article 71 of the former Water Quality Ecosystem Act to the Ministry of Environment is merely the standard of administrative disposition against the act of violating the above Act or the order under the above Act, and it cannot be deemed delegation of the requirement of disposition even if it refers to the matters concerning the degree of punitive measures against the act of violating the above Act or the order under the above Act.

Therefore, the provision of the instant rule only determines matters concerning the determination of dispositions with respect to “where pipelines that are not necessary for wastewater treatment are installed,” which fall under one type of “in a case where wastewater treatment business is performed insufficiently due to intention or gross negligence.”