beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.06.26 2013고정270

대기환경보전법위반

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A Co., Ltd. is a construction company responsible for F Corporation from July 5, 2004 to Changwon-si E Connection Division, and Defendant A is a field agent responsible for F Corporation B’s employees from October 28, 201.

1. A person who intends to conduct business prescribed by Presidential Decree which generates dust directly into the air without a specific outlet of Defendant A shall file a report thereon with the Mayor/Do Governor as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and install facilities to control dust;

Nevertheless, from September 27, 2012 to October 4, 2012, the Defendant carried out construction works at the construction site G located in the window G of Changwon-si from September 27, 2012, and did not cover the dust-proof cover in order to prevent the dust-generating caused by climatic substances, thereby causing dust-proof dust.

2. Defendant B, at the same time and place as paragraph (1), committed the same offense as Paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement (the second court date);

1. A written accusation;

1. A public official in charge and a written confirmation of violation;

1. Application of field photographs and certified transcript of corporate register Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Article 92 Subparag. 5 and Article 43(1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act;

(b) Defendant B: Articles 95, 92 subparag. 5, and 43(1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act

2. Penalty of 1,00,000 won to be suspended (with respect to Defendant B Co., Ltd.);

3. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (or against Defendant A).

4. Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence (with respect to Defendant B, the following factors shall be considered: (a) the violation was corrected immediately after the control by an administrative agency; (b) the developments leading up to the occurrence of this case; the degree of fugitive dust; and the degree

5. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (A against Defendant A) of the provisional payment order.