All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1 of the misunderstanding of the legal principles or mistake of the facts does not constitute a crime of violating the Air Environment Conservation Act, solely on the fact that the Defendants installed and used a painting facility in a factory, installed a diversating facility (e.g., fraud), and did not emit harmful substances beyond the permissible emission level. Therefore, the Defendants’ failure to report to the competent authority on the degree of 5 cubic meters away from the factory to the outside of the factory cannot be deemed to constitute a

2) Improper sentencing

B. The prosecutor’s improper sentencing (as to Defendant A)

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendants’ respective legal statements of the lower court, the police statements of D, the written accusation, and the written confirmation of confirmation, etc., may be acknowledged as having installed and operated a seal facility of at least five cubic meters, which constitutes air pollutants emission facilities, at the place of a stock company B around July 7, 2016, without reporting to the competent authority.

Article 23(1) of the Air Quality Conservation Act provides, “Any person who intends to install emission facilities shall obtain permission from a Mayor/Do Governor or report to a Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 90 Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides, “Any person who installs or alters emission facilities without filing a report under Article 23(1) or after filing a false report, or who runs any business using such emission facilities shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.”

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendants' violation of the Air Quality Conservation Act is established.

The Defendants asserted to the effect that the crime of violating the Air Quality Conservation Act cannot be established since separate facilities were installed and hazardous substances were not emitted. However, whether Defendant A installed facilities other than the instant painting facilities or actually discharged hazardous substances is the establishment of the instant crime.