A. In fact, the Defendant, upon L’s request, lent only the name of the gas station located in C (hereinafter “the gas station in this case”). There was no actual operation of the gas station in this case, and even though there was no collusion with the customer in order to not issue a tax invoice, there was an error of mistake of facts in determining the guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of probation, probation, and community service order 80 hours in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below made a statement to the effect that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e.,: ① He who was working at the gas station of this case at the time of this case, reported to the Defendant to cell phone at one or two times a day, received instructions from the Defendant, and, if he was placed in cash in the credit cooperative upon his settlement, the Defendant confirmed it thereafter; ② credit card transaction details, book adjustment, and issuance of tax invoices were in charge, but the sales tax invoice was issued, but the purchase tax invoice was not issued, and the Defendant was thought to be receiving a separate tax invoice. (Evidence No. 157-158 of the evidence record). The above statement made a statement to the court of the trial, and the above purport was also stated in the court of the trial. < Amended by Act No. 11488, Jul. 1, 2012; Act No. 11378, Jul. 28, 2012>

“A statement explicitly stating to the effect that it is “(Evidence 83 pages)”, and the Defendant, from the end of July 2012, operated the gas station of this case, is fake petroleum products.