A. Defendant A is an employee of B Co., Ltd., who is a field manager of a building building construction work (scale: 54,512.68 square meters) being constructed by B Co., Ltd., in the time of harmony.

Any person who intends to operate a business producing scattering dust shall install facilities to control fugitive dust or take necessary measures.

Nevertheless, on May 31, 2018, the Defendant failed to install facilities to control dust scattering or to take necessary measures by operating a vehicle without installing a facility with the door-to-door facility reported to be installed at the first time when filing a declaration of dust scattering in the fixed site of the construction site, which is a place of business producing dust.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed an offense against Defendant A with respect to the duties of the Defendant, as set forth in the above Section A.

2. Article 43(1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act provides that a person who intends to conduct a business which produces dust that emits dust (hereinafter referred to as "fugitive dust") and which is prescribed by Presidential Decree shall file a report thereon with the Special Self-Governing City Mayor, the Special Self-Governing Province Governor, and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and install facilities to control fugitive dust or take necessary measures. The same shall apply to the alteration thereof." Article 92(5) of the same Act provides that a person who fails to install facilities to control fugitive dust or to take necessary measures shall be punished by a fine not exceeding three million won in violation of the former or latter part of Article 43(1).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the site of the C Building Construction Works (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction work”) in the emulation of the construction work performed by Defendant B Co., Ltd. is a business place producing scattering dust, and Defendant A, the employee of Defendant B Co., Ltd, is an employee of the said construction site office, raises an objection to the original competent authority.