Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

1. The defendant Gap corporation Eul, Inc., located in the defendant A Gunsan City, is a manufacturer company of organic fertilizers, and the defendant is a representative director of the above corporation who exercises overall control over the business of the company.

No person who operates air pollution emission facilities and preventive facilities under Article 31 (1) 1 of the Air Quality Conservation Act shall perform any act to fail to operate preventive facilities when he/she operates such emission facilities.

Nevertheless, during the period from March 17, 2015 to April 29, 2015, the date of inspection, the Defendant operated an effective facility, which is an air pollutant emission facility, and failed to operate a preventive facility (e.g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g.,

2. The representative director of the defendant corporation B, the defendant corporation, committed an act as stipulated in paragraph (1) with respect to his business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (the date of the second public trial shall be the date);

1. A certificate of violation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of operating emission facilities and preventive facilities;

1. Defendant A: Article 89 subparagraph 3 of the atmospheric environment conservation Act, the main sentence of Article 31 (1) 1 of the same Act, and Article 95, Article 89 subparagraph 3 of the same Act, and the main sentence of Article 31 (1) 1 of the same Act, and Article 31 (1) 1 of the same Act, are agricultural company B: A agricultural company selected to commit a crime;

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendants’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendants asserted that the air pollution prevention facilities do not constitute “when the emission facilities are operated” as provided by Article 31(1)1 of the Air Quality Conservation Act while the Defendants do not operate a bloring, which is a device that does not cut down the blosts.

However, in the case of a stable entry into force, air pollutants can not be considered only during the operation of a blocing, and the operation of a blocing.