1. The Defendants are not guilty. 2. The summary of this judgment is published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the manager of B Co., Ltd., and the defendant B Co., Ltd. is a corporation with the purpose of housing construction and supply business.

Defendant

A A A Any person who intends to conduct a fugitive dust-generating business shall install facilities to control fugitive dust or take necessary measures.

Nevertheless, from the end of December 2012 to the end of January 23, 2013, the Defendant did not install a sloping dog or take necessary measures in order to control dust dust in a timely fashion of approximately 300 cubic meters of earth and sand (30 meters in length x 10 meters in width x 10 meters in height) generated from the destruction of the ground at the E Corporation B’s place of business located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City D.

B. Defendant B, at the same time and place as above, committed the above-mentioned violation in relation to the Defendant’s business.

2. Determination 1) Evidence of criminal facts must be presented by a prosecutor. Criminal facts must be proven by a judge to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do3327, Mar. 23, 1993; 2012Do6522, Aug. 23, 2012). 2) The major evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case is witness F, G, and H's written statement of statement, police protocol of suspect interrogation of Defendant A, but the police protocol of suspect interrogation of Defendant A is inadmissible and inadmissible.

(Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the witness H has acknowledged the fact that the defendant A did not cover the proofr, but the defendant A is the manager of the defendant B and is mainly at the head office located in Gwangju.