Defendant

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

Defendant

A above.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a director of the company B, and the defendant B is a corporation that conducts manufacturing business.

1. The Minister of Environment shall install wastewater discharge facilities pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Water Environment Preservation Act, and shall file a report on the change of a factory with the head of Jincheon-gun on the change of the factory in the manufacturing business of basic weapons chemicals; and shall operate the business with the head of Jincheon-gun after reporting the change of the factory;

Nevertheless, on April 13, 2018, Defendant A, located in Jincheon-gun C, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun (ju) on April 13, 2018, discharged wastewater purified from 1 cubic meters from 2 cubic meters (2 cubic meters) through a water channel using approximately 1 cubic meters pumps, and used non-reported wastewater discharge facilities.

2. Although Defendant B Co., Ltd. should exercise considerable care and supervision to prevent its employees from violating the above paragraph (1), Defendant A had his employees commit a violation of the above paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A public official's statement;

1. A written confirmation of collection of samples and a detailed statement;

1. On-site photographs;

1. The result of the examination of the pollution level of wastewater and the test report [the defendants did not have any piping system by winning the factory in an auction, and the wastewater in the judgment is a washing of organic farming materials which are contained in nutrition in the discussion, and thus, it is not harmful. However, in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the defendants, the crime cannot be justified in the judgment on the grounds that the defendants did not know the pipeline structure of the factory in the judgment, and the evidence was found to have exceeded the permissible emission level (in the case of the chemical oxygen demand, exceeding four times the permissible emission level) as a result of the examination of wastewater discharged as stated in the judgment, all the defendants' arguments are not acceptable).

1. Article 76 subparag. 2 and Article 33 subparag. 1 of the Water Environment Preservation Act; Article 81 and Article 76 subparag. 2 of the Water Environment Preservation Act; and Article 76 subparag. 2 of the Water Environment Preservation Act.