However, the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Defendant A is a person who actually operates “B” corporation located in Kimpo-si D.

Any person who intends to install an emission facility of air pollutants which is not subject to permission shall report to the Mayor/Do Governor, and shall not install or alter the emission facility of air pollutants without making a report or make a false report, or conduct any business using the emission

Nevertheless, the Defendant produced the beam beam, etc. for steel structures at the above place of business around January 2018, and installed an outdoor painting facility of a total of 403.2 cubic meters from the air pollutants emission facility (i.e., 6.3m x 12.8m x 5m) without reporting to the Kimpo-si Mayor, and operated the facility using it from around that time to March 9, 2018.

2. Defendant B, a real operator, installed air pollutants emission facilities without reporting to the Kimpo-si, as stated in the above paragraph (1), at the time and place of the business of the Defendant corporation, and operated the business using the same.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Application of statutes to certificates of violation, photographs related to violation, and copies of business registration certificates;

1. Defendant A who has a choice of the pertinent legal provisions and punishment on the facts constituting a crime: Articles 90 subparagraph 1 and 23 (1) of the Air Quality Conservation Act, Defendant B who has a choice of imprisonment: Articles 95, 90 subparagraph 1 and 23 (1) of the Air Quality Conservation Act;

1. Defendant A: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A of a community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B, Inc.: The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shows the attitude of Defendant A to make a confession and reflect late.

After being subject to the control of this case, the report was completed.

However, the Defendants were tried for the same crime in 2016, and they did not repeat the crime at the time.

Even if the person has been sentenced to a fine, this decision shall be made.