Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Defendant

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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person in charge of managing wastewater discharge facilities at the factory in the port B's port 2, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale of steel materials.

1. A person who intends to install wastewater discharge facilities discharged in excess of the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment by Defendant A’s specific water quality harmful to the environment;

Nevertheless, on November 15, 2017, the Defendant, without obtaining such permission, used emission facilities to discharge cadmiums, which are specific water-quality harmful substances at the port 2 plant located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (D) at least 0.05mg/liter, non-point 0.01mg/liter ( cardcadmium 0.008mg/liter, 0.01mg/liter, non-point 0.01mg/liter).

2. Defendant B, who is an employee of the Defendant, committed an act identical to that set forth in the above paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to examination marks, certificates of collection of samples, and certificates of installation of wastewater discharging facilities;

1. Defendant A: Articles 75 Subparag. 1 and 33(1) of the former Water Quality and A (amended by Act No. 14532, Jan. 17, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the same Act and Articles 75 Subparag. 1 and 33(1) (amended by Act No. 14532, Jan. 17, 2017) of the former Water Quality and A: Defendant B: Articles 81, 75 Subparag. 1, and 33(1) of the former Water Quality and Water Quality Conservation Act

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act on the confinement of a workhouse (Defendant A);

1. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the determination records as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 75 of the former Water Quality and Water Quality Conservation Act (hereinafter “Act”) even if the workplace of this case reuses the whole quantity of wastewater without discharging wastewater, as alleged by the defense counsel, even if the workplace of this case does not discharge wastewater, as otherwise alleged by the defense counsel.