As to this, only Defendant A and B appealed to each of the convictions, and as to each of the innocences, Defendant A and B did not appeal both Defendant A and the Prosecutor, each of the above innocences was separately determined and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (in each case, 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment, 1 year and 1, 4, and 6 years of imprisonment, 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of imprisonment, 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendants reflect the judgment, Defendant A and B did not have any previous conviction or more than the same kind of or fine for negligence, disposed of each of them, Defendant A has a child who suffers from rare disease, and Defendant F obtained particular economic benefits due to the instant crime.

Circumstances such as difficult to see are recognized.

However, it is necessary to reduce the risk of accidents by causing the reduction of the annual fee of vehicles and the reduction of the number of engines, and to increase the emission of harmful gases as well as to cause a lot of harm such as distorted the normal petroleum distribution structure by tax evasion.

Defendant

The volume of fake petroleum distributed for about three years in the course of running a petroleum sales business A and B without registration (Defendant A 125,286 liter, Defendant B 218,070 liter). As a result, cargo drivers caused a significant loss in local finance by denying the supply of oil subsidies.

Defendant

F The credit card to the defendant A who sells fake oil even though he had been punished for the sale of fake petroleum.