All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. In fact, Defendant A did not have a garbage crushing network installed for some main use, which was manufactured and sold by Defendant A, but this is merely an inferior product, and Defendant A did not manufacture and sell a garbage crushing machine that was not certified without the Defendant A’s intentional attachment of a oil network.

B. Article 76 Subparag. 2 and Article 33(1) of the Sewerage Act, which applies to the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine, violates the principle of clarity, and infringes on fundamental rights, such as freedom of occupation and right to pursue happiness, and thus, is unconstitutional and invalid.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants asserted to the same effect as the lower court.

The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, filed a civil petition with the following circumstances, namely, ① installed “I”, which is a kitchen garbage crushing machine manufactured in Defendant B on June 15, 2015, and found the cause of water leakage at a long time, and, thus, found that the food waste was discharged by 100% since it was not attached to “I”, ② the waste crushing machine installed in the F agency that sells the above “I” was not attached with a oil network, ③ the Defendant Company B’s factory was packed without a oil network, and in view of the fact that there was a sealed product in a sealed state in Defendant B’s factory, it can be recognized that Defendant A manufactured waste crushing machine that was not certified as stated in the lower judgment.

The decision was determined.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in a thorough manner with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendants.

subsection (b) of this section.

The Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.

B. 1) As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is derived from the principle of statutoryism in breach of the clarity principle.