Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a company running construction business, etc., and B is an employee of the Defendant Company, who works as the site manager at the construction site of the “D” implemented by the Defendant Company in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

A person who intends to operate a fugitive dust-generating business shall install facilities to control fugitive dust or take necessary measures, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, and in particular, he/she shall cover it with a proof cover when he/she keeps radioactive materials for not less than one day.

Nevertheless, from February 15, 2013 to February 19, 2013, the Defendant, who is an employee, was able to cover the dredged land with approximately 500 cubic meters in cubic meters.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect B;

1. E statements;

1. A certificate of employment (B);

1. Receipt and notification of a report on change in a project generating scattering dust or specific construction work;

1. Certificates of report on business generating scattering dust;

1. Facilities for restraining production of major scattering dust and measures therefor;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing field mining inspections;

1. Article 95, subparagraph 5 of Article 92, and Article 43 (1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant did not neglect due care and supervision over the relevant pressure, such as providing education to employees, including Pyeongtaek B, to faithfully control the scattering dust, but the Defendant did not follow the contents of the education, and the Defendant’s decision that the scattering dust does not occur due to the habiting of the field, at the time of the night, was caused by the above violation of the Act. Thus, there is no reason attributable to the Defendant.

2. According to the evidence examined earlier, there was only two persons covered with a proof cover at the time of camping as stated in the above facts constituting the crime, and two persons covered with a proof cover.