The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine.

misunderstanding the facts of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding the legal principles, ① each provision of the water quality and aquatic solar preservation law applicable to this case is in violation of the Constitution against the principle of clarity and the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation. ② The facilities installed by the Defendant do not constitute wastewater discharge facilities as prescribed by Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the above Act. ③ The Ministry of Environment announced as of February 11, 201, which was enforced on February 11, 2016, does not fall under the subject of restriction on installation as prescribed by Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the Designation of Areas and Facilities for Restriction on Installation of Facilities for Discharging Wastewater Discharge Facilities from the Nakdong River basin

(4) Since wastewater discharge facilities installed by the defendant are deemed to have been permitted pursuant to Article 14 (1) 10 of the Act on Promotion of Industrial Cluster and Establishment of Factories, the defendant installed waste discharge facilities without permission.

shall not be effective.

⑤ Since the Defendant did not fully recognize that prior to the instant case had to obtain permission for the installation of wastewater discharging facilities, it did not constitute a crime as an intentional act without any justifiable ground, or there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act.

The defendant argued to the same effect as the original judgment, and the defendant did not accept the defendant's assertion on the grounds of each judgment in the original judgment.

In full view of each of the grounds of the judgment below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

The defendant's defense counsel argues that "at the time this public notice was enforced" under Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Environment, enacted on February 11, 2016, refers to February 11, 2016, which is the date when the above public notice was enforced. However, the defendant's defense counsel argues that "the time this public notice was enforced" refers to the public notice of the East River basin Environmental Office in the same name, which was enforced from January 12, 2004.