Whether the establishment of a crime of violation of subparagraph 1 of Article 66 and Article 15 of the Environmental Preservation Act should exceed the permissible emission levels under Article 14 of the same Act and attached Table 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

A crime of violation of Article 6 subparagraph 1 and Article 15 (1) of the Environmental Preservation Act is established when a person installs emission facilities as stipulated in Article 2 of the same Act and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act without permission from the authority, and operates the facility. Therefore, whether a person actually exceeds the permissible emission levels as stipulated in Article 14 of the same Act and attached Table 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act does not affect the establishment of the above crime.

Article 6 subparagraph 1 of the Environmental Preservation Act, Article 15 (1) of the Environmental Preservation Act, Article 14 of the Environmental Preservation Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Environmental Preservation Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Environmental Preservation Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jae-sik

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No2463 delivered on July 23, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The crime of violation of Article 6 subparagraph 1 and Article 15 (1) of the Environmental Preservation Act is established by installing emission facilities as stipulated in Article 2 of the same Act and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule of Article 3 of the same Act without permission from the authority, so it is clear that the actual excess of the permissible emission levels as stipulated in attached Table 7 of Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of Article 14 of the same Act does not affect the establishment of the above crime.

In the same purport, the court below is just in applying Articles 66 subparagraph 1 and 15 (1) of the above Act to the discharge facilities of this case, which the defendant installed and operated without permission from the authority, which fall under the noise and vibration emission facilities as prescribed in Table 2, (b), (1) (4) (5) of Article 3 of the above Enforcement Rule, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the incomplete hearing as alleged.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)