Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant

A fails to pay the above fine; 50.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is the chief of a limited liability company B, who exercises overall control over the field design-related affairs of the company.

A person who intends to conduct a business producing dust directly into the air without a specific outlet (hereinafter referred to as "fugitive dust") and who intends to conduct a business storing and selling aggregate of at least 100 square meters in the field area, shall install facilities to control fugitive dust or take necessary measures.

Nevertheless, the Defendant from March 15, 2013

4. Until December 25, 200, the company in the above company, which had been located in Sinsu-si, installed a camping site of 9,900 square meters of night size, and stored in order to load and sell approximately 5,000 cubic meters of sand, and did not take necessary measures, such as a proof cover, a dust proof, etc. to suppress the fugitive dust generation.

2. The Defendant B, who is an employee of the Defendant, committed a violation as referred to in paragraph (1) above with respect to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing documentary evidence examination on the violation site;

1. The Defendants of the relevant law on criminal facts: Articles 95, 92 subparagraph 5, and 43 (1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act;

1. Defendant A of detention in a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: In light of the period of the instant offense for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; the size of the site site; the amount of sand handled by the Defendants without taking preventive measures; and the records that the Defendants were punished by the same kind of crime in 2011, the amount of fine prescribed in the summary order cannot be deemed excessive (two million won each of the Defendants) and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.