2. However, the lower court also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds of various circumstances as indicated in the “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion” item.

In light of the circumstances indicated in the judgment of the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant stored the mixed oil in the tank glass for a period of one to two months at the time of the control of this case. It is not easy for the defendant to keep the mixed oil for a long time in the tank glass used for mobile sale so that it is impossible to sell it by himself/herself at the same time, and the defendant could not sell the mixed oil in the tank glass at any time before the control of this case. However, the defendant attempted to use the mixed oil to the boiler only when he/she attempted to conduct quality inspection of the mixed oil in the boiler, which is used by the controlling public official, and the defendant attempted to use it as boiler fuel at a price higher than that of the oil. However, in light of the fact that the defendant attempted to use it as a boiler fuel at the time when he/she sold it after several months, it is difficult for him/her to regulate the mixed oil distribution of the oil in the tank oil at any time.