However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On December 29, 2016, the Defendant violated the Air Quality Conservation Act (hereinafter “C”) operated a sanction facility (56K 1st, 22.5K 1st, 22.5K 1st) from “D” located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City to December 12, 2017.

As a result, the Defendant did not comply with the order of closure under the Air Quality Conservation Act.

2. Any person who intends to install emission facilities in a residential area in violation of the Noise and Vibration Control Act shall obtain permission for the installation of the competent authorities;

Nevertheless, from May 3, 2017 to December 12, 2017, the Defendant established and operated a compressed machine (7.5K 1st, Ston type), which is a noise emission facility, without obtaining permission from the head of Gangseo-gu, Busan, the competent authority, (56K 1st, 22.5K 1st, and 22.5K 1st).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on administrative disposition due to a public official's written statement, written confirmation, on-site photo, or environmental-related violation;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Act on the Conservation of Air Quality, and Articles 89 subparag. 5-2 and 38 of the Act on the Selection of Air Quality (the point where an order of closure is not issued), Article 57 subparag. 1, and Article 8(1) (the point of installation and operation of unauthorized emission facilities) of the Noise and Vibration Control Act concerning facts constituting a crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the defendant still continues to engage in the business even though he/she was punished twice as a fine for the same crime, and thus, the purpose of punishment cannot be achieved. Therefore, the defendant is selected as a fine, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and means of crime, and results are considered as favorable circumstances in which he/she has no criminal record exceeding the fine, and the arguments of this case are shown in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age