The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was in charge of a general affairs director in the Fisheries Cooperatives B (hereinafter “B Suhyup”) and served as a person in charge of managing the said Cooperatives and their branch offices.

Although the Defendant was prohibited from discharging designated wastes (waste oil) in public waters, the Defendant, at around 12:00 on June 10, 2015, discharged approximately 1.5 L from lubric oil 18Ls returned by a fish business operator to a public water zone (water pipe), thereby causing contamination.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Defendant requested the attendance at the B Suhyup E branch in relation to the instant outflow accident from the D environment forest department; (b) the head of the past business division served as the head of the business division; and (c) the Defendant was present on behalf of the B Water Cooperative; and (d) the Defendant did not leak the waste lux oil due

In addition, since the lux oil has been leaked in the lux distribution of waste lux, which is arbitrarily left alone by a fish business operator outside the Blux C's workplace at the time, it is difficult to view that the lux oil has been leaked due to the negligence in the management of the officials in charge of Blux E

3. According to the F’s legal statement by the witness F, the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, was working as the director in charge of consultation B at the time of the instant leakage incident, and did not perform the duty of care for duty-free oil. The Defendant’s responsibility for the management of B water-free Category B where the instant leakage incident occurred is the person in charge of the B water cooperation C, the Defendant, who was the director in charge of the B water cooperative’s head office, did not directly check the status of the branch’s waste management, and the Defendant, who was the director in charge of the B water cooperative’s head office, did not directly check the status of the branch’s waste management, and the fact that

Therefore, the Defendant’s negligence in the course of performing his duties on the ground that the Defendant appeared and stated in the D Environment Forest as B as a proxy in relation to the instant waste outflow accident.