beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
B is a person in charge of the D-site in Sacheon City C.
Defendant
A is a person who employs B and engages in shipbuilding business.
No one shall discharge pollutants from a ship into the sea.
From the above D to September 30, 2016, D Co., Ltd. traded and fixed to the wharfs adjacent to the Busan Wancheon Port E on October 5, 2016 of the same year, but due to the impact of the typhoon’s “scop,” it was destroyed by the breakwater’s low temperature system near the port and caused damage to the hull by collision with the bridges fixed at the sea before the Eth of the storm due to the storm and wind of the storm.
B From March 11, 2017 to 18:20 of the same month, from the point of March 11, 2017 to the point of 13.13.20 of the same month, the hull was folded with the outer plate of the sea. Thus, it was found that the hull and the barge installed asbestos spokes between the hull and the barge, and installed an asbestos spokes to take measures to avoid falling into the sea, and caused the spokes to the sea by getting out of the sea of approximately 100g of the lusor of the lusium, and caused the contamination of the sea.
Defendant
A In relation to the defendant's work, B, an employee, committed the above violation.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. A protocol concerning the suspect B of the police;
1. B written statements;
1. Arrest report of a person who violates the Marine Environment Management Act;
1. In determining the Defendant’s assertion of photographs, the Defendant alleged to the effect that he was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent the employee’s violation of the Marine Environment Management Act. Thus, even if based on the materials submitted by the Defendant, it is only recognized that the Defendant provided education on the prevention of safety accidents and the protection of the ocean and atmospheric environment to the employees on one occasion on January 13, 2017, and solely on these circumstances, the Defendant was to prevent the violation of the Marine Environment Management Act.