beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is a person who engages in printing business with the trade name “C” in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul.
Any person who intends to install and operate printed machinery with a noise emission capacity of at least 50-math in a residential area shall obtain permission to install noise emission facilities from the competent administrative agency in accordance with related Acts and subordinate statutes
Nevertheless, from August 2007 to August 23, 2013, the Defendant installed and operated noise emission facilities, including a 60-mast (45 Kw) printing machine, a 1 set of a short-term 1 unit of 60-year printing machine, and a catrogs, leaflet, book, shopping bags, posters, etc., printed monthly and monthly sales of approximately KRW 100 million, and KRW 1.2 billion per year.
2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act set a printing machine with a capacity of at least 50 miles as noise emission facilities; (b) on November 4, 2013, the revision of the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act was made to relax the said provision with respect to the observer printing machine with a capacity of at least 100 miles; (c) the Defendant’s observer printing machine (60 miles) which fell under the noise emission facilities subject to punishment pursuant to the statutes at the time of the act was no longer constituted noise emission facilities; (d) the standard for regulating and punishing noise emission facilities is the size of noise emission facilities; and (e) it is reasonable to consider “scale of horse capacity” as the basis for the regulation or punishment of noise emission facilities; and (e) in full view of the fact that the above Enforcement Rule was amended without any transitional provision regarding the application of the penal provision on the previous act, the previous Enforcement Rule is deemed to have been amended in view of anti-discrimination that the standard of excessive regulation was abolished after the act of the Defendant’s charged constitutes a crime.
3...