A. As to the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “oil Business Act”) on July 9, 2012, the Defendant: (a) misleads the Defendant into the fact that the Defendant violated the said Act; (b) opened both a tank 1 tank and a valve of the 2 tank mobile-sale vehicle; and (c) mixed oil with light oil in the 1 tank and light oil in the 2 tank; and (d) there was no fact that the Defendant intentionally sold fake petroleum products mixed with light oil.

B. misunderstanding the facts as to the violation of the Petroleum Business Act on June 10, 2014 and misunderstanding the legal principles 1) Of the evidence as indicated in the lower judgment, “the notice of the result of the quality inspection of petroleum products” was made on the basis of the samples collected in violation of the relevant statutes, such as Article 25(3) of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 28(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and thus, it is inadmissible

2) Even if the above evidence is admissible,

Even if the sample collected from No. 1 tank was about 100%, and the mixture of 20 to 30% had already been small transit.

06 In light of the fact that the 06-tank 2 tank oil was used only but rather less than the existing 5% mixed oil was collected, and that the enforcement officer did not confirm to the defendant that the Defendant had the possibility of collecting samples before collecting samples from the main abandonment, it is contradictory between the result of the test of collecting samples, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be acknowledged that the Defendant sold fake petroleum products mixed with 45% oil, including the Defendant.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (a violation of the Petroleum Business Act on July 9, 2012: 4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspension of execution, 120 hours of community service, and 50,00 won of fine: 50,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake as to the violation of the Petroleum Business Act on July 9, 2012, the Defendant and the defense counsel at the lower court asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment, and the lower court is “the grounds for conviction” among the judgment.