1. Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant A, B, K, and L among the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Where Defendant E or F is a stock company, the indication of the stock company is omitted.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the above defendants (the fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant G and H1) The above Defendants knew that the wastewater created by washing the sea sand constitutes wastewater under the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (hereinafter “Water Quality and Ecosystem Conservation Act”). Since the public officials in charge of Changwon-si at the time did not know it properly, the above Defendants’ act of discharging wastewater constitutes an act of misunderstanding that it does not constitute a crime under the law, and constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding.

B) Since the above Defendants did not know of the false report by entrusting Defendant K with the entire business related to the installation of wastewater discharge facilities to Defendant K, there was no false report on the installation of wastewater discharge facilities by publicly recruiting Defendant K or calculating the quantity of water used or the quantity of wastewater generated in a false manner. 2) The punishment (a fine of eight million won) sentenced by the lower court on the above Defendants is excessively unreasonable.

C. Defendant I and J (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) reported the volume of water used on February 25, 2014, which was at the time of reporting the installation of wastewater discharge facilities, more than the average volume of water used on the daily basis as of February 25, 2014, and the demand for sand was rapidly increased beyond the expected daily level. Accordingly, the daily average volume of water used on March and April 2014 was more than 210 cubic meters and more than 258 cubic meters, and the above Defendants did not file a false report on the installation of wastewater discharge facilities on February 25, 2014.

B. The above Defendants delegated all of the duties related to the installation of wastewater discharge facilities to Defendant K and L, and Defendant K informed only of the average daily water usage volume of 210 cubic meters as at the time to Defendant K, and the remaining reported matters to Defendant K.