The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a corporation with the purpose of passenger transport service in 171 as Gwangju City, and A is an employee of the defendant.

When emission facilities are operated, pollutants emitted from emission facilities shall not be discharged by mixing with air in order to lower the pollution level.

Nevertheless, on September 13, 2016, employees A, who are the employees of the defendant, operated preventive facilities at the defendant's workplace located in 171 in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and opened all doors of painting facilities (area 436.16 cubic meters) to ensure that air flows into the air. At the bottom of the bus, employees A, who are the employees of the defendant, operated the preventive facilities.

Accordingly, when operating emission facilities to lower the A's pollution level, it discharged pollutants discharged from emission facilities by mixing the air to lower the pollution level.

2. Determination

A. Relevant regulations and Article 95 of the Air Quality Conservation Act have both penal provisions on corporate criminal responsibility as follows.

If the representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other servant of the corporation or an individual commits an offence under any of Articles 89, 90, 90-2, and 91 through 93 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions.

Provided, That this shall not apply where a corporation or an individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such violation.

In light of the principle of self-responsibility, it is reasonable to view that the above punishment provisions apply only to the case where a corporation neglects its duty of due care or management and supervision concerning the business of violation caused by its employees. In specific cases, whether a corporation neglected its duty of due care or management and supervision, the legislative purport of the pertinent law, i.e., all the circumstances related to the relevant violation.