When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a representative who exercises overall control over the operation and management of "D" as a manufacturer of leather products in both countries.

Any person who intends to install emission facilities shall obtain permission from a Mayor/Do Governor or report thereon to the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from November 21, 2014 to November 10, 2015, installed two rooms of painting facilities (use 24 cubic meters, volume 31.2 cubic meters in cubic meters, volume 31.2 cubic meters), which are emission facilities, without reporting to the competent administrative authority, from the said place of business to the competent administrative authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of witness E in the third public trial protocol;

1. Results of a report on detection, a statement of detection, a copy of business registration certificate, each field photo, an investigation report (report on the results of a field investigation), a reply to inquiry of the fact to the Ministry of Environment, and the results of on-site verification upon request of the Korea River Basin Environmental Office;

1. References to inquiries, such as criminal history, and application of the statutes on the judgment of the same case;

1. Article 90 Subparag. 1 and Article 23 Subparag. 1 of the former Conservation of the Air Environment Act (Amended by Act No. 13528, Dec. 1, 2015); the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the crime of this case committed by the Defendant, which installed and operated two of the instant painting facilities, air pollutants emission facilities, in light of the content and method of the crime, and the legislative intent of the atmospheric environment conservation Act, etc., the crime of this case is not less and less complicated, and even if the Defendant was punished as committing the crime of installing and operating the instant painting facilities around 2014, the Defendant committed the crime of this case by continuing to conduct operation using the instant painting facilities, and even up to now, the Defendant appears to have been under operation using the instant painting facilities, with the records of having been subject to punishment several times due to the same and similar crimes, balance of general amounts of punishment in the same and similar cases, and others of this case.