The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant operated “D” from January 2, 2012 to September 2015; (b) closed on September 30, 2015; and (c) the standards for the violation of the Air Quality Conservation Act should be applied on the basis of enemy time and time of business operation, rather than the newly established Act; and (d) the lower court determined whether the Defendant violated the Air Quality Conservation Act based on the relevant Act after October 2015.

Therefore, the defendant did not commit an illegal act related to the permission for the installation of emission facilities.

[Defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's written opinion on October 17, 2016, because the defendant's defense counsel did not know the fact that specific air harmful substances are discharged while operating a shot bath, and there is no intention in violation of the Air Quality Conservation Act, and there is no clear provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Air Quality Conservation Act that sets the emission standards for specific air harmful substances subject

However, this argument is presented after the due time limit for appeal expires, and each of the above arguments cannot be deemed a legitimate reason for appeal, and it is not reasonable even if it is examined ex officio.)

2. Article 23(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Conservation Act provides that “Any person who intends to install emission facilities shall obtain permission from a Mayor/Do Governor or report to a Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 23(1) of the same Act provides that any person who installs emission facilities without obtaining such permission shall be subject to criminal punishment under Article 89 subparag. 1 of the same Act.

On the other hand, Article 11(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Conservation of Air Quality provides that the emission facilities subject to permission for installation under Article 23(1) of the Act on the Conservation of Air Quality shall be “discharge facilities generating more than the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment” as amended by Presidential Decree No. 26705, Dec. 10, 2015, and Article 11(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Conservation of Air Quality before the amendment as above.