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

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a corporation that operates wastewater discharging facilities by running a business of trading salt and letter-post from Sincheon-si B, and C is a representative director.

Where new water pollutants are generated in excess of the permissible discharge standards, which are matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, among the matters permitted by a person who has obtained permission for the installation of discharging facilities, and it is necessary to improve discharging facilities and water pollution prevention facilities,

Nevertheless, since September 13, 2017 to October 20, 2017, C violated the Defendant's duty because of the occurrence of a new water pollutant, which is a new water pollutant exceeding the permissible emission level, and it is necessary to improve the discharge facilities or water pollution prevention facilities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation, written statement, written confirmation, copy of business registration certificate, copy of permission for the installation of wastewater discharging facilities, written report on wastewater test results, previous records of the suspect and summary order;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Articles 81, 75 subparag. 1, and 33(2) of the relevant Act on the Preservation of Water Quality and Aquatic Organisms (amended by Act No. 14532, Jan. 17, 2017) concerning criminal facts

1. The grounds for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment are as follows: (a) the Defendant recognized the crime of this case and against his mistake; (b) the period of the crime of this case is relatively long; (c) the improvement was made to discharge water pollutants within the permissible discharge standards after the control of the crime of this case; and (d) the change was reported on the change of wastewater discharge facilities; and (e) the Defendant’s employees, etc. wanting to dismiss the Defendant’s wife, etc. are recognized as favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case in which the defendant did not obtain permission for change even though it is necessary to improve the discharge facilities by discharging new water pollutants exceeding the permissible discharge standards.