logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.12 2017고단2332
화학물질관리법위반등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,00,000, for four months of imprisonment for Defendant B.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B A Co., Ltd. is a corporation that manufactures and sells metal heat in E at the time of chemicalization, and Defendant A is the representative of the above B Co., Ltd.

1. Ex officio correction is made for facts constituting an offense acknowledged based on evidence to the extent that there is no substantial disadvantage in guaranteeing the defendant A's defense right.

(a) Any person who intends to conduct a hazardous chemical business in violation of the Chemicals Control Act shall obtain the permission of the Minister of Environment;

Nevertheless, from January 2015 to January 9, 2017, the Defendant manufactured a total of 96.97 tons of products containing a total of 5 harmful chemical substance, including 19.14 tons, which is a hazardous chemical substance, as indicated in the attached Table 1, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Environment. From January 2015 to January 9, 2017, the Defendant sold 56.437 tons of the total of 3 harmful chemical substances, such as alcinium total of 5.575 tons, as indicated in the attached Table 2, and used a total of 2.5 tons of sulfur (1.6 tons of January 6, 2015, and 0.9 tons of October 9, 2016).

(b) No person who violates the atmospheric environment conservation Act shall install or alter emission facilities, or conduct any business using such emission facilities without filing a report on installation of emission facilities or filing a false report;

Nevertheless, around January 9, 2017, the Defendant used one of the facilities to build basic weapons compound in cubic 1.87 cubic meters, which is a waiting emission facility installed without reporting to the competent authorities by the above B Co., Ltd.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed the same act of violation as described in paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business at the date and place mentioned in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Each statement of H, I, and J;

1. Request for investigation, report on detection, copy of business registration certificate, and air pollution emission facilities;

arrow