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.

The Defendant, as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, had no power equipment, strings, and paints installed in the place of business for each other work, such as car luminous work, and did not install a painting facility (pushes and rollers work alone).

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

Articles 23(1) and 2 subparag. 11 of the Air Quality Conservation Act, Article 11(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act / [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act concerning the assertion that the sentencing is erroneous;

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 E’s trial testimony, it is recognized that the defendant has the power equipment such as compliance, presses, paint, etc. at the workplace, and considering the structure, form, operation principles, etc., it constitutes a painting facility on which the duty to report is imposed under the above law.

In the end, 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 the facts of the crime in the judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law

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

The defendant is the first offender, the same kind of enterprise that is not controlled by the administrative agency, or the violation of other atmospheric environment conservation laws.