logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.06.22 2015고정1771
대기환경보전법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The defendant is the representative of an enterprise that operates automobile luminous and defects removal business with the trade name of 'D' from 'D' in Ansan-si c and 101.

A person who intends to install a painting facility (the volume of which is at least five cubic meters or the power of which is at least three miles) which is an emission facility shall file a report with the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, from February 1, 2012 to August 27, 2015, the Defendant installed and operated a waiting-emitting facility (type 80 cubic meters, power 3 metres) and operated a painting work to remove defects in automobiles without reporting to the competent authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of evidence E;

1. A criminal investigation report (including attached documents) (including the defendant and his/her defense counsel asserts that the business place operated by the defendant is less than five cubic meters from the total area of the working space or the volume of the object, which is less than five cubic meters, and it does not

The term "air pollutants emission facilities" means facilities, machinery, apparatus, and other objects discharging air pollutants into the atmosphere as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment (Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Air Quality Conservation Act), Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Air Quality Conservation Act, and subparagraph 14 (g) of attached Table 3 thereof, the facilities which are not less than 5 cubic meters or not less than 3 miles of power are air pollutants emission facilities as prescribed by the said Act. The term "stamping facilities" refers to working rooms which mainly use exclusive installation or painting for painting (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7385, Feb. 26, 2003). The following circumstances revealed by the said evidence are, namely, (a) the defendant has installed a place of work in which the defendant can cover approximately 80 cubic meters of air pollutants, equipped with various equipment necessary for paintinging the 3-mac meters of power, and has been discharged from the body part of the defendant's work using liter.

arrow