The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant used power equipment, presses, paints, etc. in the place of business for each other work, such as car luminous work, etc. (Pushes and rollers only worked) and did not install painting facilities.

In fact, the defendant did not use the above equipment to carry out painting work.

Articles 23(1) and 2 subparag. 11 of the Act on the Conservation of Air Quality concerning Determination of misunderstanding of Wrongful Facts and misunderstanding of Legal reasoning; Article 11(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 5 and [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

2. B. B. 25) According to the foregoing, the phrase “a person who intends to install a painting facility with a volume of not less than five cubic meters or power of not less than 2.25 km (including a powder, body, molecular facility and drying facility)” requires the Mayor/Do governor to file a report on the installation of air pollution emission facilities.

According to the above law, whether or not to report the installation of air pollution emission facilities should be determined as a painting facility, and whether or not the defendant actually uses the relevant facilities is not directly related.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the witness D's trial statement, the defendant's place of business is recognized to have electric power equipment such as compliance, presses, paintes, etc., and considering the structure, form, operation principles, etc., it constitutes a painting facility on which the duty to report is imposed.

Ultimately, according to the evidence, since the defendant was found to have installed a painting facility without reporting the establishment to the competent authority, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of criminal facts in the judgment is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The defendant is the primary offender and the administrative agency did not regulate the illegal argument of sentencing.