The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the purport of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles), the public official in charge of controlling the defendant gives testimony that "I think that dry water is increased and speaking, and heating will continue to supply fuel source." The defendant also stated at the time of the police investigation that "the purpose of the 21 cubic meters facility is to build the slurg himself with regard to the use of the 2nd equipment in the 1.21 cubic metres," and the defendant's defense counsel asserts that the above facility is to emit the slurg by heating the slurg from high temperature and to change the strength of the slurg to a short one, it is difficult to regard the facility of the defendant as the 1.22 metres facility from the 1.21 metres of the air environment conservation Act, and it is clear that the facility falls under "building facility" or "slurging facility" as air pollutants defined in the Air Environment Conservation Act.

Even if the above facilities correspond to “heat facilities”, according to the provisions of attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Air Quality Conservation Act, the term “indirect heating facilities” refers to the power generated by directly heating the source of energy (fire, inflammable gas, etc.) or liquid fuel (water, etc.). The Defendant’s 1.21 cubic meters of the two facilities are all “electric power” and the co-days is part of the two facilities, and thus, the above facilities do not constitute “indirect” facilities.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the two facilities in 1.21 cubic meters are indirect heating facilities using electricity only.

2. The lower court, while clearly explaining the grounds for the determination in detail, excluded air pollutants emission facilities from the indirect heating facilities that use only electricity generated from 1.21 cubic meters among the Defendant’s facilities, and the remaining 2.4 cubic meters of 2.4 cubic meters.