대기환경보전법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was engaged in luminous and painting operations at the place specified in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant workplace”), and did not use the instant workplace as a painting facility.
2.5 MW 1 MW kept in the workplace of this case is about 0.75kW, and 2.5 MW is 1.875kW.
One of the two fake presses was broken at the time of detection, and the other one was used by the defendant to remove dust, etc. generated in the course of the automobile luminous work, but did not use the painting work.
Therefore, the workplace of this case is attached Table 3 of Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Air Quality Conservation Act.
2. (b) does not fall under the emission facilities of air pollutants under paragraph;
However, the Defendant had a usheshel or roller in the instant workplace, and thus, even if the instant workplace falls under a painting facility, the Defendant is included in the attached Table 3 above.
2.(a)(ii) must exclude air pollutants subject to reporting under the Air Quality Conservation Act from emission facilities.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case without a duty to report to the Mayor/Do Governor as to the workplace of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable to view the facility of this case as an air pollutant emission facility subject to reporting under the Air Quality Conservation Act. Thus, the court below's judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the
1) The Defendant runs away from 50.22 cubic meters (6 meters wide, 3.1 meters long, and 2.7 meters high).