The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "air pollutants emission facilities" means facilities, machinery, apparatus, and other objects discharging air pollutants into the atmosphere as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment (Article 2 subparag. 11 of the Air Quality Conservation Act), and Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Air Quality Conservation Act [Attachment 3] [Attachment 2.b. b. b. 25] of the Enforcement Rule of the Air Quality Conservation Act, the facilities which are not less than 5 cubic meters cubic meters or power of not less than 2.25km are air pollutants emission facilities. Here, the term " sealed facilities" refers to a working room with the main purpose of exclusive installation, painting work, etc. for painting (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7385, Feb. 26, 2003, etc.). The lower court determined that the instant work room constituted painting facilities as prescribed by the Air Environment Conservation Act, in light of power equipment, sculates, equipment, such as paint, structure, form, operation principle, etc.

According to the evidence, a traffic control official witness to carry out painting work in the defendant's work room, confirmed the trace and large quantity of painting work using presses, and the defendant conducts business such as repair of a spread that requires seal work in addition to the vehicle luminous, on the signboard of the business office.

information that the advertisement is being made.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning and all such circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is recognized that the Defendant primarily uses the instant work room for painting work, etc., and thus, the said work room constitutes air pollutants emission facilities as prescribed by the Air Environment Conservation Act.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on air pollutants emission facilities under the Air Quality Conservation Act, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on air pollutants.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, it is therefore.