2. The judgment below held that the crime of this case was committed in consideration of the following circumstances: (a) the crime of this case is likely to harm the sound distribution order of petroleum products; (b) there is a high risk of undermining the performance and safety of vehicles; (c) there is a significant social harm as to causing similar crimes; (d) the size of fake petroleum sold by the Defendant is reasonable; and (e) the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed in a short period of time; (b) the Defendant believed that it is the transit of refined petroleum, and caused substantial damage to the general public in terms of safety and economic aspects; (c) the Defendant complained of the Defendant for the benefit gained from the crime of this case on the ground that there is a little profit; (d) the Defendant complained of the Defendant on the ground that there is no major reason in sentencing; (e) it seems that there was no higher ratio of content of fake petroleum, etc. in sentencing, and (e) it appears that there was no history that the Defendant was punished in excess of a fine; and (e) the Defendant’s favor of the Defendant.

The Defendant asserted that the Korea Petroleum Institute sold a large number of normal petroleum, not fake petroleum for a period other than quality inspection, and thus, the reason for sentencing is considered. However, even if considering the reason for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, considering the circumstances of sentencing, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

Evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair, etc.