The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not violate the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act, inasmuch as the misunderstanding of facts, wastewater sources, and all tests of discharged water are judged to be in conformity with “within the standards”.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Articles 33(1) and 75 subparag. 1 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (hereinafter “Water Quality Ecosystem Conservation Act”) provide that a person who intends to install emission facilities shall obtain permission from the Minister of Environment or report to the Minister of Environment, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 70 million won.

According to the delegation of the Act, Article 31(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Quality Ecosystem Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25773, Nov. 24, 2014) provides that both permission shall be granted to install emission facilities which produce specific substances harmful to water quality (after the amendment of the Enforcement Decree, referred to as “discharge facilities which discharge specific substances harmful to water quality in excess of the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment”). Article 4 and [Attached Table 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Ecosystem Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 600, Jun. 16, 2015) provide that facilities which generate specific substances harmful to water quality shall be changed to “discharge facilities which discharge specific substances harmful to water quality in excess

Therefore, in the case of discharging facilities which are specific harmful substances at the time of the crime of this case, the former must obtain permission from the Minister of Environment without determining the standard, and if the latter did not obtain such permission, the latter should be subject to criminal punishment. According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can recognize the fact that he operated emission facilities which are specific harmful substances, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Environment.