The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are acquitted.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants had already been sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act, and the facts charged in this case are related to the crime of the above final judgment and the facts charged in this case, so the facts charged in this case should have res judicata effect of the above final judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendants of a fine, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged (1) Defendant A is the representative of “stock company B” established in Nam-si, Namyang-si, on May 8, 2008 for the purpose of collecting and selling aggregate and manufacturing non-metallic minerals, and a person who intends to operate a business producing scattering dust shall report it to the competent authority and shall install facilities to control scattering dust or take necessary measures. However, the Defendant did not report it to the competent authority, and the Defendant operated the business site without taking measures to control scattering dust by failing to install a night substance dust-proof cover, three wheeled facilities, and so on at the same place from February 3, 2012 to March 29, 2012.

(2) Defendant B, at the same time and place as above, did not install necessary facilities to control fugitive dust as above in relation to the Defendant’s business.

B. The judgment of the court below prior to the remanding of the case was affirmed the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendants, on the grounds that the Defendants withdrawn the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles among the grounds for appeal in the court of appeal, and dismissed the Defendants’ appeal.

(c) under a single and continuous criminal intent, several actions or actions falling under the name of the same offence.