A. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the charge of violating the Act on the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that, even though the Defendants were registered as a petroleum retail business only for vessel oil supply business under the Harbor Transport Business Act, supplying petroleum to the land oil station beyond the registration scope, the Defendants were not guilty of violating the Act on the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business.

B. The lower court’s sentence (as to Defendant A) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The previous facts charged are modified as follows (C) while maintaining the facts charged of violating the previous Act on the Business of Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel as the primary facts charged at the trial of the prosecution. This part of the indictment seems to be a clerical error in Article 46 subparag. 10 and Article 39(1)10 of the former Petroleum Business Act (amended by Act No. 13085, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) [Article 46 subparag. 10 and Article 39(1) subparag. 8 of the former Petroleum Business Act (amended by Act No. 13085, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply].

[] An application for the amendment of a bill of indictment was filed, and the above court permitted it, and the subject of the judgment was modified. Accordingly, after determining whether the primary facts charged and the ancillary facts charged are guilty, the prosecutor's argument on unfair sentencing is judged in turn. (B) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged, the Defendants are punished.

Defendant

A is a person who operates a ship oil supplier in the name of "L" from K at the early of the beginning of the beginning of the city, and Defendant B is a person who transports oil tanks.

The Defendants together with the Defendants.