Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant

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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B The decision-making company shall have an office in Busan Dong-gu, and is a corporation established for the purpose of measuring agency business, etc. by environmental pollution, and the defendant A is the representative of the company.

1. Although Defendant A’s measuring agent shall record the results of measurement and analysis as they are, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and keep the results thereof for three years from the date of the last entry, the Defendant: (a) collected samples from the above office around January 18, 2018; (b) collected samples without measuring air pollutants; and (c) arbitrarily prepared a atmosphere measurement record book as if he/she conducted measurement of air pollutants; and (d) from that time on December 19, 2018, recorded the results of measurement and analysis on a total of 63 occasions in the same manner as indicated in the annexed crime list,

2. The Defendant Company A, the representative director of the Defendant, committed each of the above offenses in relation to the Defendant’s business at each time and place described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to copies of false records measurement records;

1. Defendant A of pertinent legal provisions pertaining to criminal facts: Subparagraph 7 of Article 33 and Article 18 (1) of the Environmental Examination and Inspection Act (Act No. 13601, hereinafter the same shall apply): Article 34, Subparagraph 7 of Article 33 and Article 18 (1) of the Environmental Examination and Inspection Act;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (Defendant A);

1. We accept the defense counsel's assertion that the elements of a violation of the duty of provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are likely to be repeated due to its nature, and it is difficult to view that the elements of a violation of the duty of the same kind are naturally expected to be repeated.