A. Article 39(1)8 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”) (hereinafter “instant provision”) provides for “other acts detrimental to the sound distribution order of petroleum and alternative fuels, which are prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 43(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the instant case”) provides for the supply or supply of petroleum products or alternative fuels in violation of the scope of business or business methods by petroleum retail business or by alternative fuel retail business, and the concept of supply does not include the Defendants’ mobile sales activities, such as the instant mobile sales activities.

B. The legal provisions of this case cannot be clearly confirmed through the law what constitutes the elements of punishment for a person with sound common sense and ordinary legal sentiment. Since the government’s arbitrary state punishment rights are unlikely to be exercised under subordinate laws and regulations, rather than the law enacted by the National Assembly, it has been violated Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution that provides for the principle of no punishment without law (the grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant’s defense counsel on July 23, 2014). Although the defendant’s defense counsel’s opinion is not stated in the grounds for appeal submitted on July 23, 2014, the above assertion is not stated in the Presidential Decree, it is too abstract that the prohibited act is delegated to the Presidential Decree without specifying the basic matters concerning the contents and scope of the duty and the broad concept, and even if the act prohibited under Article 39 of the former Petroleum Business Act does not specifically indicate the contents and the elements of the duty of omission and any other act, it is also considered a crime that is prohibited under the Presidential Decree.