A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is operating a mutually favorable processing company with the trade name “C” in Overcheon City B.

1. Around October 15, 2014, the Defendant failed to report to the competent authority, even though he/she entrusted the treatment of all wastewater generated in the course of operating wastewater using glass product processing machinery which generates wastewater (the maximum volume of five cubic meters per day, which is a specific substance harmful to water quality, (the maximum volume of five cubic meters), which is generated in the course of discharging wastewater without filing a report on wastewater discharge facilities

As a result, the defendant used the discharge facility without reporting the installation of the discharge facility.

2. Around September 14, 2012, the Defendant violated an order to close down a processed product, which is a wastewater discharge facility, by using it, until October 15, 2014, despite having received an order to close down the processed product, as stated in paragraph (1), from an excessive market.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (the receipt of official notices requesting the change of accusation and attaching materials submitted by suspects);

1. Article 76 subparagraph 2 of the relevant Act and Articles 76 and 33 (1) of the Act on the Selection of Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem concerning Criminal Facts, and Articles 76 and 44 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (the point of failing to report emission facilities, the choice of imprisonment), Article 76 subparagraph 8 of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act;

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

1. The sentencing criteria are not applied because the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are not set.

In addition, even though the defendant had been sentenced to a fine twice due to the same crime, the period of operation in violation of the law is reasonable as the defendant committed the crime in the judgment, but the defendant is in depth and plans to move to the place of business.