Defendant A is a petroleum retailer operating B. A petroleum retailer shall not sell products such as oil, etc. as fuel for automobiles under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Automobile Management Act and vehicles and machinery prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, at around 14:10 on September 28, 2017, the Defendant, using his E-Sale Vehicle (Tank L) in Ulsan-gun C located in Ulsan-gun, with light oil and oil being kept in custody, provided that it is impossible for the Defendant to open a light valve installed in the mobile vehicle to identify the flow of oil.

Accordingly, the Defendant sold petroleum products prohibited from selling as fuel for a vehicle to a petroleum retailer.

2. Determination

The conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value that can lead a judge to have no reasonable doubt. If there is no such proof, even if there is doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, it cannot be determined as guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). The following circumstances can be revealed by the evidence duly examined and adopted in this court: ① If there is only one tank, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant either intentionally purchased or sold one kind of petroleum product in the tank, such as the fact that there is no possibility of mixing with the above facts that the defendant could not have any other type of petroleum product, including the fact that the defendant intentionally purchased or sold it. ② Even if there is no possibility that the defendant might have used the same type of petroleum product without any other type of petroleum product, such as the fact that the defendant intentionally purchased or sold it, it is difficult to conclude that the above type of petroleum product might be mixed with the above facts that the defendant had any other type of petroleum product.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the case constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, but the summary of the judgment should not be disclosed pursuant to the proviso of Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act.