In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

If a business operator desires to operate the emission and preventive facilities after completing the installation of the emission or preventive facilities, he shall make in advance a report on the commencement of operation to the competent authorities.

Nevertheless, from February 3, 2012 to July 25, 2013, C, the Defendant’s operator, without filing a report on commencement of operation, operated a drying facility (3 cubic meters in 78.75 cubic meters), screening facility (4 units, 2-2 units in 78.75 cubic meters), screening facility (4 units, 2-2 units in 50 cubic meters), one exhaustr facilities, one unit of exhaustr facilities in the lower judgment, one unit of wastewater-generating facility in the wastewater discharge and prevention facility, and one unit of wastewater treatment facility (5/00 cubic meters in cubic meters and one unit).

The defendant C, an operator of the defendant, committed such a violation as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of C’s legal statement;

1. Guidance and inspection marks of places of business where discharging facilities are installed;

1. A certificate of report on the installation of air discharge facilities and a report on installation;

1. Place for production and manufacturing process;

1. An investigation report (a accompanying report, such as a certified transcript of the corporate register);

1. As a result of the request for the submission of taxation information on the Jinju Tax Office (the defendant was unaware of whether to report to the competent authority when commencing the operation of discharging facilities and preventive facilities, and the remaining Gun, which is the competent authority, did not inform the defendant or C of the obligation to report as above at the time of regulating the installation of wastewater treatment facilities or at the time of factory registration. Thus, the defendant or C alleged that the failure to report the commencement of operation of the discharge facilities and preventive facilities of this case was not a crime. However, the above circumstance alone alone is insufficient to deem that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendants' act does not constitute a crime, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's above assertion constitutes a mere legal site. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted).

1. The Act on January 20, 2015, which is applicable to the relevant Article of criminal facts and the former Clean Air Conservation Act that selects punishment.