Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment is publicly announced.

Public Prosecutor's Office

1. No defendant A business operator shall operate emission facilities without operating preventive facilities or emitting pollutants discharged from emission facilities, mixing with the air, in order to lower the degree of pollution;

Nevertheless, on May 29, 2018, the Defendant committed an act of discharging pollutants discharged from emission facilities by installing a device for air dilution in a diameter of about 10 cm in diameter in the former part of the measurement of air pollutants and discharging pollutants discharged from emission facilities, while installing two air emitting facilities (75 m2) and two air conditioning facilities (75 m2), which are the facilities attached thereto, and two air conditioning facilities (150 m2).

2. Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and processing non-metallic mineral products.

The defendant's employee A committed an act of discharging pollutants discharged from air emission facilities, mixing with air, in relation to the defendant's business at the same time and place as paragraph (1).

However, in order to establish a violation of Article 89 subparag. 3 and Article 31 subparag. 1 of the Air Quality Conservation Act, a prosecutor’s proof of the subjective constituent elements of “in order to lower the pollution level” should be required in addition to the criminal intent of “discharge by mixing pollutants with air.”

(2) However, the prosecutor’s written statement (including photographs) submitted by the prosecutor alone was proved.

subsection (b) of this section.

① Rather, the instant device was built in around 200 by the Plaintiff, which had been awarded a contract for the construction of machinery, and the reason for the installation was for the purpose of inspecting the ventilation control device to identify the error in the operation of the mination machine (33 pages of the investigation record), and appears to have omitted removal after the inspection. ② Since the instant device was discovered and the results of measuring the atmospheric pollution level were found, there was no significant relevance between the instant device and the effect of reducing the pollution level.