Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who actually operates a D gas station in Daejeon Dong-gu C.

A person who installs facilities subject to specific soil contamination control (including operators) shall comply with an order to take measures to purify contaminated soil, if the result of the soil contamination inspection exceeds the standards.

As a result of the occasional inspection of soil contamination conducted on November 16, 2012, the Defendant failed to comply with an order, without justifiable grounds, even though he/she was ordered by the head of Daejeon Dong on April 17, 2015 to take measures for soil purification by exceeding the detailed inspection standards by the end of October 19, 2015, in excess of the level of risk of soil contamination (THP (total carbon hydrogen 4,625 g/km (based on 2,00 g/km)).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the accusation book, each field photo, reasons for accusation, results of soil analysis, order for measures against contaminated soil, and notification scheduled for order for purification of contaminated soil;

1. Article 29 of the relevant Act and Articles 29 subparagraph 1 and 14 (1) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act concerning facts constituting a crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant is a person who leased the instant gas station from F.

The ground of the soil contamination of this case is due to water leakage caused by cracks in tanks, tank tanks, and defects in water flow separation, and the responsibility of management and repair of the above facilities is against F, the owner. Thus, the Defendant does not constitute a person responsible for purification under the Soil Environment Conservation Act.

B. Although the Defendant requested F to transfer “before the index” that was buried adjacent to the contaminated land tank, F did not comply with the request.

In addition, even though the defendant entrusted F with purification work, F did not implement it.

Therefore, even if the defendant is a person responsible for purification.