Defendant

A Imprisonment for six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

However, the defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is an executive director of the Company B, who is a general manager of the overall business of the factory.

A person who intends to install emission facilities generated in excess of the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment with a specific atmosphere shall obtain permission from the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, on November 2, 2017, the Defendant, at the time of control, operated the above facilities without permission, in the Chungcheongbuk-do, the competent administrative agency, despite the fact that salt emitting hydrogen, which is a specific atmosphere harmful substance, was discharged from 1.27 pm (the standard concentration 0.4 pm) in concentration facilities, response facilities, and mixed facilities, which are air discharge facilities installed in the Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Co., Ltd., and operated the above facilities without permission.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is a corporation established for the purpose of recycling non-metallic materials and manufacturing other basic weapons chemicals.

The defendant, at the above date and at the same place, committed a violation as described in paragraph (1) by a private person against whom the defendant had no interest in the defendant's business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A report on investigation (in-house verification results);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a letter of confirmation of collection of samples, a copy of a public notice of the results of the inspection of pollution level, a letter of confirmation, and a copy of

1. Relevant legal provisions and Article 89 of the Air Quality Conservation Act; Article 23 (1) of the same Act; Article 95 of the same Act, subparagraph 1 of Article 89, and Article 23 (1) of the same Act, and Article 95 of the same Act, Article 89 of the same Act, and Article 23 (1) of the same Act;

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

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

1. Defendant 2 of the Provisional Payment Order: The reason for sentencing Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) has increased social consensus on the harm and danger of environmental crimes, including air pollution.

In light of the fact that the Defendants committed the instant crime even though they had the same record as twice, it is in accordance with the duties of the Defendant company.