logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.12.07 2016노3175
대기환경보전법위반등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The former employer was already aware of the completion of the report to the competent authority with respect to the painting facilities and compresseds of the instant case, which had been installed at the time when the Defendant had taken over the “D” workplace, and even if the competent authority had been operating the workplace, the Defendant did not have any intention or awareness of illegality due to the failure to point out the fact of the report.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The court below's decision on the grounds of unfair sentencing (2 million won of fine) on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant intentionally committed an intentional act on the installation and operation of air emission facilities and noise emission facilities in a state that was not reported to the competent authority as stated in the facts charged is acceptable.

(2) Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding." The purpose of Article 16 of the Criminal Act is not just the case of a site of law, but the act which constitutes a general crime but, in its special circumstances, it is erroneous that it does not constitute a crime permitted by Acts and subordinate statutes, but it does not punish it when there are justifiable grounds

Therefore, it was known that the previous business owner, who the Defendant asserted, performed the procedure of reporting required by the relevant laws and regulations concerning the instant facilities and compresseds.

on the spot of a public official of the competent authority.

arrow