All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of reasons for appeal: A finished product that Defendant A discharged by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles is a waste if it becomes more difficult to use it for people's livelihood or business activities as it was discharged;

In addition, Defendant A’s act of piling the body of an animal into front of the body can be seen as “an act of dumping waste” under Article 15(1)2 of the Water Quality and Airs Monopos Mos Mos Mos Mos Mos Mos Mos Mos Mos Mos Mos Mos Mos

However, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below on the discharge of finished products maintaining animal nature by comparing it with records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

B. Article 78 Subparag. 3 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Organisms Preservation Act provides that “a person who discharges specific water-quality harmful substances, etc. to any other person” shall be punished in accordance with Article 78 Subparag. 2 of the same Act, “a person who discharges waste, etc.” shall be punished.

Therefore, in order to punish the Defendants under Article 78 subparag. 3 and Article 81 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act, the Defendants must have intention to abandon the Defendants beyond simply leakage of finished products maintaining animal nature.

In that sense, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① finished products maintaining the animal nature of Defendant B are likely to flow out from the storage tank to the public water area due to the failure to manipulate the previous driver, and ② animal nature of Defendant B.