logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.22 2015고정1908
대기환경보전법위반
Text

1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2,000,000 won;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

If a Mayor/Do Governor intends to install air discharge facilities, he/she shall report thereon.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is running the business of restoring a motor vehicle in the name of “C” from early September 2013 to March 23, 2015, without reporting it, and the Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act [Attachment Table 3] [Attachment 3] of the Clean Air Conservation Act without reporting it.

1.(b)

26.(f) The volume of painting facilities in the volume of five cubic meters as set out in subparagraph (f) are two or more. The seal facilities in the volume of 78 cubic meters (4.0m x 7.5m x 2.6m) were installed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A written accusation;

1. A certificate;

1. On-site confirmation photographs;

1. Application of statutes on business registration certificates;

1. Relevant provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 90 of the Clean Air Conservation Act and Article 23 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting a crime.

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

1. As to the claim of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that, inasmuch as the cans have been brought to a workroom and did not use several cans presses, it cannot be viewed as a painting facility.

According to the above evidence, the defendant can recognize the fact that the workrooms, painters, presses, can be installed with a cans for the purpose of indoor painting work in the workroom of 78 cubic meters beyond simply bringing several cans, and the above workrooms are space for luminous work and glass painting work in addition to painting work, even if the above workrooms are space for luminous work and glass painting work, such work is not subject to restriction on the place. In addition, the above workrooms constitute a painting facility with the main purpose of painting work, and whether or not the above work is actually performed, it does not affect the conclusion of the painting facility.

In full view of the above evidence, the facts charged of this case is fully found guilty, regardless of the defendant's change of prosecution.

arrow