소음ㆍ진동규제법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The Defendant is a person who runs the printing business with the trade name “C” in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul.
Any person who intends to install and operate printing machines with noise emission capacity of not less than 50 miles in a residential area shall obtain permission from the competent authority in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.
Nevertheless, from September 2007 to August 30, 2013, the Defendant installed and operated a single unit of 73 mast printing machine without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, and printed the 73 mast printing machine from the customer, such as a Kathrogs and paths, which was received from the customer, and applied a monthly average sales amount of KRW 100 million to install and operate noise emission facilities.
2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act set a printing machine with a capacity of at least 50 miles as noise emission facilities; (b) on November 4, 2013, the revision of the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act was made to relax the said provision with respect to the observer printing machine with a capacity of at least 100 miles; (c) the Defendant’s observer printing machine (73ma) which fell under the noise emission facilities subject to punishment pursuant to the statutes at the time of the act was no longer constituted noise emission facilities; (d) the standard for regulating and punishing noise emission facilities is the size of noise emission facilities; and (e) it is reasonable to consider “scale of horse capacity” as the basis for the regulation or punishment of noise emission facilities; and (e) considering the fact that the said Enforcement Rule was amended without any transitional provision regarding the application of the penal provision on the previous act, the previous Enforcement Rule is deemed to have been amended in consideration of anti-discrimination that the standard of excessive regulation was abolished after the Defendant’s act in the facts charged constitutes a crime and thus acquitted.
3. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act.