Of those, the part as to Defendant Hanyang Co., Ltd. is reversed.

Defendant

Hanyang Co., Ltd.

2. Determination

A. The fact that Defendant A led to the instant crime and reflects his mistake in depth; that it is difficult for the Defendant to install facilities to control fugitive dust, such as spact facilities, at the construction site of this case; that is, there is no sufficient space to install such facilities; that is, the Defendant took measures to control fugitive dust, such as installing sprinks at the entrance of the construction site and dusting water into the wheels of the vehicle with high voltages; that the residents around the construction site prepared and submitted a written application to the Defendant who want to take the Defendant’s wife; and that the Defendant was the first offender who had no criminal power.

However, if the construction scale of the instant construction project is not small, the installation of facilities to control fugitive dust may cause significant damage to nearby residents, and the Defendant who has worked in the same industry for a long time is likely to have sufficiently known that he/she should install facilities to control fugitive dust at the construction site of the instant case, which are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

B. The company size of the defendant Hanyang Co., Ltd. and the construction size of the instant case are small, and dust scattering occurs.