The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

The Act on the Conservation of Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystems (hereinafter “Water Quality Ecosystem Act”) does not have a clear definition on “discharge,” and there is room to interpret that the case where “taking out” is included in the “discharge” of water pollutants to treat the wastewater generated from a small machine as the Defendants, so it is invalid in violation of the principle of clarity.

The Water Quality Ecosystem Act delegates to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment with respect to wastewater discharge facilities, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides for the calculation of the capacity of the storage facilities attached to the facilities, “the maximum daily amount of wastewater” in the case of the reuse machinery that deviates from the scope of delegation, and thus, the above Enforcement Rule is null and void because it deviatess from the scope of delegation or violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation.

The Defendants did not know in the instant case that, until the examination results of water quality testing, metal ingredients can be melted in the diversh oil so that specific water-quality harmful substances may be emitted. The Defendants did not receive any explanation or notification from administrative agencies even in the course of moving a factory into an industrial complex.

Therefore, there is a justifiable reason to believe that the Defendants did not have the intention to violate the law and did not constitute a crime.

There is no specific definition provision regarding the meaning of "discharge" with a somewhat comprehensive and broad definition provision concerning "discharge of wastewater" in violation of the principle of clarity as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles of sentencing.

Even if the meaning and scope of “discharge facilities of wastewater” under the above Act are compared to the legislative purpose and purport of the Water Quality Ecosystem Act, the content of the prohibition provision, the prior meaning of “discharge facilities”, the concept of “discharge facilities of waste water,” and the common sense of the general public.