logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.06.22 2017고정112
대기환경보전법위반
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A has been working as the representative of Defendant B who manufactures liquid removal removal, etc. at the time of surplus from October 2015 to the time of surplus.

Any person who intends to install emission facilities shall obtain permission from a Mayor/Do Governor or report thereon to the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

1. On April 20, 2012, Defendant A installed 2 in the above business establishment, Defendant A, without obtaining permission from the Mayor/Do Governor, two leisure facilities used in refining salt acid storage facilities that generate salt calcium, which is a specific atmosphere harmful substance to which permission from the Mayor/Do Governor can be obtained, and in refining salt calcium.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed the same act of violation as described in the preceding paragraph, which is the representative of the Defendant, at the time and place mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Six copies of the evidence photograph;

1. Plans for the placement of facilities of the place of business and atmosphere measurement records;

1. Application of statutes on business registration certificates;

1. Defendant A who has the option of a relevant legal provision and punishment concerning a crime: Article 89 subparagraph 1 of the atmospheric environment conservation Act and Article 23 (1) of the same Act, Defendant B who has the option of a fine: Articles 95, 89 subparagraph 1 and 23 (1) of the atmospheric environment conservation Act;

1. Defendant A who is detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The amount of fine should be determined in consideration of the fact that the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as the “criminal Procedure Act”) was immediately permitted by the Defendants at the latest.

arrow