The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The key point of the grounds for appeal is that the volume of power consumed on the Helel Drie (5 color) printing machines installed and operated by the Defendant is only 91kw (121 Emb, if converted into Ef, 121 Ef, if converted) or 63.7kw (82.7 Ef, if converted into Ef, 82.7 Ef, if converted into Ef,).

However, the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act set a printing machine with more than 50 miles as a noise emission facility, and was revised on November 4, 2013 to relax the standard more than 100 times with respect to the observer printing machine. This was revised to the effect that the punishment itself, which is not a simple change in policy, is unfair, and the Defendant’s act stated in the facts charged, constitutes a crime due to the repeal of the law after the crime, and thus the punishment has been abolished, it should be sentenced to acquittal.

In addition, even if the legislative purpose of which the printing machine should be subject to “noise and vibration control” is justifiable, it is not effective and appropriate to take the Hp, which is not the level of actual noise generation (dB), as a regulatory standard, so it violates the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the Defendant’s statement at the court below’s court, the statement of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the special judicial police officer against the Defendant, and control site photographs, the Defendant’s assertion that the actual power of the printing machines of this case is merely 82.7 mp. (f. 63.7 kw) f. from April 10, 201 to August 31, 2013.

(b).