A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates the clothes processing business chain in Gyeonggi-do Group C.

1. Any person who intends to run a business recycling wastes in violation of the Wastes Control Act shall obtain permission from the competent administrative agency;

Nevertheless, from March 18, 2014 to May 11, 2016, the Defendant supplied waste timber, which is waste, to the boiler (in the capacity of incineration: 1,200km/h) in the above D, and incinerated waste, and did not obtain permission for waste treatment business, while performing steam recycling business.

2. Any person who intends to install air emission facilities in violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act shall report to the competent administrative agency;

Nevertheless, from March 18, 2014 to May 11, 2016, the Defendant used boiler (in the capacity of incineration: 1,200 g/h) as a waste incineration facility and operated the boiler without reporting the installation of air emission facilities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written confirmation of violation, an investigation report (Attachment to a report on illegal disposal of timber), an investigation report (verification of purchase of additional timber and depositee), a statement of transport expenses for D-related suspects, a criminal investigation report (information of waste timber incineration after the filing of the statement and the statement), and a report of investigation (information of a written statement on the introduction of waste timber);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 64 subparagraph 5 and 25 (3) of the Wastes Control Act (generally, the point of operating an unauthorized waste disposal business), subparagraph 1 of Article 90 of the Clean Air Conservation Act and Article 23 (1) of the Clean Air Conservation Act (generally, the point of operating an unreported air pollutant discharging facility), and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order has been five times since 2004 that the Defendant violated the Clean Air Conservation Act, and one time that was punished as a violation of the Wastes Control Act.

Nevertheless, the Defendant again committed each of the crimes of this case.

The period of crime is long, and it is immediately re-established even after the crackdown.