Defendant

A fails to pay the above fine, 50,000.

1. Defendant A is the representative director of the foregoing company that operates the taxi transport business under the trade name of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

Despite the fact that the Defendant, when operating air emission facilities, did not operate preventive facilities or discharged pollutants from emission facilities mixed with the air to lower the degree of pollution, he/she installed preventive facilities on the sewage pipe in the course of installing preventive facilities to obtain a report on the installation of air emission facilities from the Songpa-gu office and to purify pollutants from the vehicle painting facilities. The Defendant discharges pollutants by mixing them with the external air from July 21, 2008 to October 17, 2012.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed the same act of violation as described in the preceding paragraph in relation to its business at the above date and at the above place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A certificate;

1. Investigation report (report on improper detection of unfair operation of air emission facilities);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (reports attached to business places in violation);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Subparagraph 3 of Article 89 and Article 31 (1) 1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act (Selection of Fines);

(b) Defendant B corporation: Articles 95, 89, and 31 (1) 1 of the Clean Air Conservation Act;

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act or more.