However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in petroleum sales business under the trade name of the gas station B.

No petroleum retailer shall sell oil, such as oil, as fuel for a vehicle.

Nevertheless, at around June 8, 2017, the Defendant sold the light oil contained in the Defendant E mobile delivery vehicle oil owned by the Defendant to G dump truck in F operation at the time of stay at around 15:30 on June 8, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. A written statement prepared in the I;

1. Two copies of accusation against the violating business entity, notification about the quality and distribution of petroleum products, confirmation of the violation of the order of petroleum distribution, verification of collection of samples, and check of whether the act is prohibited;

1. Four copies of on-site inspection photographs and closure photographs of a crackdown image;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not sell his/her lue oil to F, and that F stolens the light oil contained in his/her lue mobile lue, the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion.

However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant is able to drive a mobile oil tank containing glass, enter D, park it on the side of F dump truck, and then use a sump truck, which is connected to the mobile oil tank, and allow F to oil for a dump truck directly, and then recognize the fact of sale sufficiently.

In addition, there is a video image taken by H at the time, which was notified by the National Tax Service that the gas station B operated by the Defendant was suspected of violating the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act.

In light of the above, the defendant's assertion that F was a theft of defendant's future oil is obviously unacceptable. It can be seen that the defendant's assertion that F was not acceptable.

F is clear even if not only the customer who was the defendant, but also has no thief history, but also the defendant's side has not filed a complaint against F with the theft.

Defendant for the same reason as above.