석유및석유대체연료사업법위반
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the defendants of the court below (the defendant A: imprisonment of two years and confiscation; imprisonment of one year and two months and two months and confiscation) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A’s crime of this case is that Defendant A manufactured, transported, distributed, and distributed fake transit. Such crime requires strict punishment due to serious social harm, such as disturbance in the distribution order of petroleum products and tax evasion, Defendant A directly participated in the manufacture of fake transit, Defendant A was a large amount of fake transit that Defendant A manufactured and distributed with his accomplices, and Defendant A appears to play a significant role in the crime of this case committed in a systematic manner, such as ordering Co-Defendant A et al. to transport fake transit, etc., and Defendant A appears to play a significant role in the crime of this case committed through Co-Defendant D et al.
However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A’s recognition of all of the instant crimes; (b) Defendant A’s participation in the instant crime for the purpose of collecting claims againstO; and (c) Defendant A appears to have been given instructions, such as O, N, Q, etc. in the course of committing the instant crime; and (c) the actual gains from the instant crime do not seem to have much high level; (d) Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment except for punishment once in 2007 prior to the instant crime; (b) equity in sentencing with the same and similar cases; and (c) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant case, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable; and therefore, Defendant A and his defense counsel’s allegation of unfair sentencing is reasonable.
B. Defendant B’s crime of this case is that Defendant B manufactured, transported, and distributed fake transit, and such crime constitutes social harm, such as disturbance in the distribution order of petroleum products and tax evasion.