The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) and the defendant's employee B's statements, etc., the defendant was given considerable attention and supervision to prevent the employee from emitting pollutants by mixing them with air.

Even though it is difficult to see it, the lower court did not prove that the Defendant was negligent in giving due attention and supervision to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a corporation with the purpose of passenger transport service in 171 as Gwangju City, and B is an employee of the Defendant.

When emission facilities are operated, pollutants emitted from emission facilities shall not be discharged by mixing with air in order to lower the pollution level.

Nevertheless, around 13:00 on September 13, 2016, employees B, who are the Defendant’s employees, operated preventive facilities at the Defendant’s workplace located in Gwangju-si, and operated a painting facility (area 436.16 cubic meters) to ensure that the air flows into the air by opening all doors of the painting facility (area 436.16 cubic meters), and carried out a panel painting work at the bottom of the bus (hereinafter “instant act”). Accordingly, in order to lower the level of pollution, when the emission facilities are operated in order to lower the level of pollution, the emission was discharged by mixing the pollutants emitted from the emission facilities with the air to lower the level of pollution.

B. The lower court determined based on the following: (a) the Defendant provided education to prevent environmental management and accidents at work sites once a month; and (b) the Defendant neglected to pay considerable attention and supervision to prevent the Defendant from mixing pollutants with the air, on the grounds that the Defendant provided education to the effect that “the act of releasing pollutants, such as painting facilities, is absolutely prohibited (on-time closing off door)” on April 20, 2016 and July 20, 2016, prior to the occurrence of the instant case.