The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The phrase “facilities emitting air pollutants, i.e., facilities emitting air pollutants into the atmosphere, machinery, apparatus, and other objects” as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 11 of the Clean Air Conservation Act is not a place of work of the Defendant (24.8mm2). Since the volume of decentralization itself is less than 5m2, it does not constitute the subject matter of report.

In addition, the punishment (one million won of fine) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The term “air pollutant-emitting facility” refers to a facility, machine, apparatus, or other object that emits air pollutants into the atmosphere and is prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment (Article 2 subparag. 11 of the Clean Air Conservation Act) and Article 5 [Attachment 3] subparag. 2(b) and (25) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 806, May 2, 2019) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 806, May 2, 2019) constitutes an air pollutant-emitting facility with a seal of not less than 5 cubic meters or power of not less than 2.25 km. Here, the term “stamping facility” refers to a work room that mainly focuses on the exclusive use of painting, painting, etc. for painting, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7385, Feb. 26, 2003).

In addition, in light of the purpose, structure, form, etc. of the instant workplace recognized by the record, it is reasonable to view that the instant workplace constitutes a work room mainly for painting work, etc., and that the entire workplace using it as well as an empty space is a painting facility where the duty to report is imposed in the Clean Air Conservation Act.

This part of the defendant's assertion is justified.