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.
The summary of the facts charged in this case is a person who engages in printing business with the trade name “C” in Seoul Jung-gu.
Any person who intends to install printed machinery with a noise emission capacity of at least 50 math in a residential area shall obtain permission for installation of noise emission facilities from the competent administrative agency in accordance with related Acts and subordinate statutes.
Nevertheless, from June 2007 to August 27, 2013, the Defendant installed and operated noise emission facilities, such as setting up and operating one 60,000 foot printing machine at the above business site located within a residential area without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, and printing books, cals, etc., and raising sales of approximately KRW 60,000,000 as average monthly sales in 2013.
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 a noise emission facility; (b) on November 4, 2013, the revision of the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act was made to alleviate the standards with regard to the observer printing machine with a capacity of at least 100 miles; (c) the Defendant’s observer printing machine, which fell under the noise emission facility subject to punishment, was no longer an emission facility subject to punishment; (d) the standard for regulating and punishing noise emission facilities is deemed to be the size of noise; and (e) it is difficult to consider “scale of horse” as the basis for the regulation or punishment of noise emission facilities; and (e) the amendment of the Enforcement Rule does not have any transitional provision regarding the application of the penal provisions to the acts before its enforcement; (e) the previous Enforcement Rule is deemed to have been amended in consideration of the fact that the Defendant’s act recorded in the facts charged does not constitute a crime after its repeal, and thus, acquitted was pronounced on the ground that the Defendant’s punishment was repealed.
The Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is an option printing machine.