2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (not guilty part) states that Defendant C provided that Defendant C had the primary responsibility except for the primary transit only once to Defendant A. Since the above statement by Defendant C is reliable, the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendants of part of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment against Defendant A: (a) acknowledged by the records of this case as follows; (b) acknowledged that the Defendant was taking the oil via the said gas station at lower level with respect to the part related to the “K gas station” (hereinafter “V gas station”); (c) stated that B did not know of the fact that he sold boiler, etc. at the investigative agency; and (d) alleged that B did not sell boiler, etc. at the lower court court’s court court’s court court’s court’s court’s court’s judgment; (c) stated that W, who was an employee of the said gas station, did not have the boiler, etc. at the lower court’s court’s court’s court’s court’s judgment to the effect that the Defendant did not share the boiler, etc.; (d) in the part related to the “N gas station,” the lower court stated that the Defendant was only a vehicle boiler, not a boiler, etc.; and (e) in the absence of the aforementioned gas station, the employee made a statement to the effect that C was also a considerable.