However, this judgment has become final and conclusive against the Defendants.

1. Defendant A’s representative is a person who operates a place of business that engages in metal and non-metallic material recycling business at the seat of Kimpo-si.

When operating emission facilities and preventive facilities, no act of installing air controlling devices, branch emission pipes, etc. to emit pollutants shall be conducted without passing through preventive facilities.

Nevertheless, on June 2018, the Defendant installed two ventilation systems, which are air control devices, at a place where four devices for crushing facilities are installed, which are air emission facilities, and installed 5kws in total, which are air emission facilities, and installed a variety of discharge pipes to discharge pollutants without passing through preventive facilities on August 6, 2018.

2. Defendant B is a corporation established with the purpose of recycling metal and nonmetallic materials.

The defendant, at the same time, and at the same place as the above Paragraph (1), committed the same act of violation as the above Paragraph (1) by the representative of the defendant B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant A by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to certificates of violation, photographs related to violation, business registration certificates, full certificates of registered matters, and reports on installation of standby emission facilities;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Subparagraph 2 of Article 90 of the Clean Air Conservation Act, Article 31(1)2 of the Clean Air Conservation Act, and selection of fines;

(b) Defendant B: Articles 95, 90 subparag. 2, and 31(1)2 of the Clean Air Conservation Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for a suspended sentence (the following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. The grounds for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act are against Defendant A, the primary offender, and the company run by the above Defendant omitted reporting procedures in the process of installing explosion preventive facilities after explosion accidents occurred.