Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Defendant

A is a person who actually operates Company B, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of the production of environmental products, and is the owner of the construction for the expansion of “Na Dong dong dong” and “Da Dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong

1. Defendant A was not allowed to use or use a building for “B Dong Dong-dong,” and “Da Dong dormitory Dong-dong,” in violation of this, Defendant A used a building without obtaining approval for use by installing or operating the factory machinery at a permitted place as a warehouse of “B company” or “Dong Dong-dong,” as of May 2015, where a public official in charge was allowed to visit the site as of the date of on-site visit by a public official in charge, and used the building without obtaining approval for use by means of installation, maintenance, and trial operation, etc.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed the above violation at the above time and place. Defendant B, an employee of the Defendant, committed the above violation.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Some statements made against the defendant A in the police interrogation protocol;

1. A report on investigation (not more than attachment of case records and not more than 22 pages of investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes attached to a written accusation and written accusation;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 110 Subparag. 2 of the Building Act, Article 22 Subparag. 3 of the Building Act, the selection of fines

(b) Defendant B: Articles 112(3), 110 subparag. 2, and 22 subparag. 3 of the Building Act

1. Defendant A who is detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion was that the Defendants installed factory machinery inside the warehouse (hereinafter “instant building”) of “B”, which is an extension building as indicated in the judgment of the competent permitting authority prior to the approval of use by the Defendants, but the Defendants are not the Defendants.