However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On December 30, 2016, the Defendant was ordered to close down emission facilities without filing a report from the head of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government on the grounds of the installation and operation of emission facilities without filing a report. However, from June 2, 2017 to December 12, 2017, the Defendant operated “C” in “C” located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, which is located in “C”, with the seal facilities (two cubic meters in cubic meters) and building facilities (two cubic meters in cubic meters).

As a result, the Defendant did not comply with the order of closure under the Air Quality Conservation Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to public officials' written statements, written confirmations, field photographs, and copies of Gangseo-gu administrative dispositions (order for closure);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Conservation of the atmospheric environment and Articles 89 and 38 of the Act on the Selection of Punishment for Crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection and Observation, etc. of the same kind of crime are as follows: (a) considering the unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant continues to engage in the business despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime two times; (b) is against the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime; and (c) there is no criminal history exceeding the fine; and (d) taking into account the favorable circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant has no criminal history