Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Defendant

A is the representative director of the corporation B in Kimhae-si, and the defendant corporation B is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing steel structures and subdivisions.

No person shall operate air emission facilities without operating preventive facilities or emitting pollutants discharged from emission facilities, mixing with air, in order to lower the degree of pollution.

1. On July 13, 2016, Defendant A operated the air discharge facilities (20,000 cubic meters) at a factory in B, a stock company, without operating the preventive facilities.

2. As set forth in paragraph (1), Defendant B, as the representative director of the company, operated the standby emission facilities (20,000 cubic meters of the entrance facilities) without operating the preventive facilities, and committed a violation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of public officials' statements, written confirmations, and field photographs statutes;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Subparagraph 3 of Article 89 and Article 31 (1) 1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act;

(b) Defendant B: Article 95, subparagraph 3 of Article 89, and Article 31 (1) 1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act (Selection of Fines);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (Defendant A);

1. The Defendants, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, were found to have been found to have been found to have been using all preventive facilities after repair due to the breakdown of the centralized air emission facilities before the discovery of the instant case while the Defendants operated the preventive facilities while operating the flat air emission facilities, and neglected to turn on the preventive facilities after repair. While the previous and several times of the repair of the Defendants A, the Defendants were in violation of the duty to report irrelevant to the operation of air emission facilities, etc., as ordered in light of the following: