If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

The Defendant is a person who engages in automobile external management business under the trade name of “C” in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1. Any person who intends to install a atmospheric environment conservation facility shall report to the head of the competent Gu, as prescribed by Presidential Decree;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without reporting to the head of the competent Gu, has carried out his/her seal work using a seal work room of approximately 52.16 cubic meters from June 19, 2014 to June 20, 2017 (the work room concurrently carrying out work, building and separation) and an open space (the title 2.04 EM).

2. Any person who violates the Motor Vehicle Management Act shall register his/her motor vehicle maintenance business with the head of the competent Gu as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without being registered with the head of the competent Gu, equipped with the seal facilities of approximately 52.16 cubic meters in cubic meters, etc. on May 30, 2017, and carried out a motor vehicle management business (motor vehicle maintenance business) which is carried out on the top of the steering line of the DNA black vehicle and then carries out a criminal seal.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of investigation reports (the atmospheric environment conservation act, the detection report of any person who violates the Automobile Management Act), and Acts and subordinate statutes governing field photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Act on the Conservation of the Air Quality, and Articles 90 subparagraph 1, 23 (1) of the Act on the Selection of Air Quality (Installation of Unreported Discharge Facilities), Article 79 subparagraph 13, and Article 53 (1) of the Automobile Management Act concerning facts constituting the crime, and the selection of fines;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, including the fact that the Defendant has a history of criminal punishment four times due to a violation of the Automobile Management Act, the period of violation of the Air Quality Conservation Act, the degree of profit, and the fact of living penalty as indicated in the instant trial, are considered to be excessive in light of the sentencing conditions set forth in the summary order.