The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) operated by the Defendant did not reinforce cement facilities in order to re-enter wastewater into the primary tank at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, and there was no preliminary mortar in preparation against the occurrence of the second underwater mortars.

In light of these circumstances, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, since it is recognized that the defendant cannot have any choice but have any choice but to discharge wastewater even after the discharge of wastewater due to a failure of underwater mother.

Judgment

The court below found that the wastewater released separately at the time of the occurrence of the instant case is not generated in a case where cement mixed wastewater, which is generated by washing and washing ready-mixed vehicles, is used in a recyclable tank to manufacture ready-mixeds. If such recycling system is normally operated, the wastewater discharged separately. At the time of the instant occurrence, the court below found that the second underwater mortar, which pumps wastewater from the first tank to the recycled tank, flows into the adjacent road outside the retaining wall located on the company's boundary because wastewater flows over the wind, and entered the same as the result of the instant recognition. In light of the above facts, the Defendant used the whole quantity of the wastewater generated as above at the time of manufacturing ready-mixeds, and thus there is no need to discharge it specifically, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant intentionally discharged the above wastewater, and the possibility that the Defendant could have intentionally discharged the wastewater, as well as the possibility that there is no intention to do so, should be acknowledged as a result of an intentional uncertainty.