60s CEO of Measurement Agency Recording False Data Without Air Pollution Measurement "Bad Nature of Crime" Appeal Dismissed

[Asia Economy Yeongnam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Kim Yong-woo] The appeal of the CEO of an air pollution measurement agency, who was prosecuted for falsifying air quality measurement results such as dust, has been dismissed.

The Daegu District Court Criminal Division 1 (Presiding Judge Nam Geun-wook) announced on the 24th that in the appeal trial of Mr. A (in his 60s), the CEO of the measurement agency who was charged with falsifying air pollution measurement and analysis results (violation of the Act on Environmental Testing and Inspection), the court dismissed the defendant's appeal and sentenced him to six months in prison with a two-year probation, the same as the original trial.

According to the Daegu District Court, Mr. A, in April 2017, received a subcontract for self-measurement services and issued air measurement records by arbitrarily entering measurement analysis values without actually measuring items such as dust and total hydrocarbons at air pollution emission facilities.

He was accused of entering measurement analysis values without actual measurement or falsely recording measurement analysis values as if samples were collected according to standard testing procedures until May of the following year.

Ultimately, Mr. A was prosecuted for issuing 994 air measurement record books containing false records.

In court, Mr. A claimed, “I did not neglect considerable care and supervision regarding the relevant work to prevent violations.”

However, both the first trial and the appellate court judged, “There is no evidence that the company educated or supervised employees to prevent the crime, and rather, the defendant’s company instructed or encouraged employees to commit the crime.”

The court stated, “Considering the very poor nature of the crime, the fact that the company was illegally operated by issuing false air measurement records from the beginning, the long duration and considerable number of offenses, the original sentence imposed on the defendant is not deemed excessively harsh or unfair.”