Supreme Court held that defendants committed the lesser offense of environmental damage rather than the more serious environmental crime.

The Supreme Court of Finland ruled that the defendants were guilty of environmental damage instead of the more severe environmental crime. The prosecution argued for the heavier charge based on the scale of the harm, while the defense contended the specific elements of the crime were not met. The court determined that the factual circumstances strictly aligned with the statutory definition of environmental damage, thereby rejecting the prosecution's request for the aggravated charge.