Defendant

A Imprisonment for 6 months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won.

except that this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

1. In order to install a restrictive facility with a power of at least 15kW as a person who operates a household parts manufacturing chain “B” in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Defendant A, even though the competent authority must report the installation of air pollutants emission facilities to the competent authority, Defendant A installed two sanctions facilities at “B” factories, which are air pollutants-emitting facilities, from October 17, 2015 to June 14, 2016, without reporting the installation of air pollutants emission facilities.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) the representative of the Defendant, without reporting the installation of air pollutants emission facilities to the competent authority, installed two sanctions facilities of 7.5kW, air pollutants emission facilities, at a factory located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, from October 17, 2015 to June 14, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Defendant A: Article 90 subparag. 1 of the atmospheric environment conservation Act and Article 23(1) of the same Act (or choice of imprisonment), Defendant B: Articles 95, 90 subparag. 1, and 23(1) of the atmospheric environment conservation Act;

1. Defendant A who is subject to suspended execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A of a community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc.;

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: The Defendant’s defense counsel on the Defendant’s assertion of defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was unable to know that the Defendant’s act was unlawful because the pertinent administrative agency did not take any administrative measure against the Defendant’s act.

On the other hand, the instant act argues to the effect that it constitutes an act that was committed by mistake that the Defendant did not constitute a crime, and thus cannot be punishable under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

However, on October 16, 2015, the Defendant was punished by a fine for a crime similar to the instant act by the court.