[석유사업법위반][미간행]
[1] The number of crimes in the case of selling pseudo petroleum products continuously for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent (=general crime)
[2] The base point at which res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment extends in a case where a judgment becomes final and conclusive on a part of the crime in the relation of an inclusive crime (=the time of sentencing in the
[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the facts charged in violation of the Petroleum Business Act due to the storage and sale of pseudo petroleum products have res judicata effect in the previous judgment
[1] Articles 26 and 33 of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 37 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [3] Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 247 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1855 Decided July 26, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2159) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4061 Decided November 26, 2002
Defendant
Prosecutor
Suwon District Court Decision 2005No427 decided Jan. 20, 2006
The appeal is dismissed.
Article 26 of the Petroleum Business Act provides that "no person shall produce or sell products prescribed by Presidential Decree, which are manufactured by mixing petroleum products with other petroleum products or petrochemicals with other petrochemicals (hereinafter referred to as "pseudo petroleum products"), or store, transport, or keep such products with the knowledge that such products are for sale purposes." Article 33, which is penal provisions, provides that a person who violates Article 26 shall be punished. Meanwhile, where a person continues to engage in multiple acts falling under the name of the same crime for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and whose damage legal interests are identical, each act shall be punished by a comprehensive crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1855, Jul. 26, 2002). Since the direct legal interests and interests of the punishment provision of Article 26 of the Petroleum Business Act are to secure the proper quality of petroleum products, the act of violating Article 26 of the Petroleum Business Act continues to be in violation of the social legal interests of the society, and thereby constitutes a comprehensive petroleum product under Article 2601 of the Petroleum Business Act.
On November 4, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 50,000 won for the crime of violating the Petroleum Business Act at Seoul Southern District Court (Case No. 1 omitted). On November 12, 2004, the above judgment was affirmed. Defendant is a person engaged in the sales of similar petroleum products such as LP-PPPWER (L-PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP). While anyone is aware that it is a sale purpose, he/she shall not store, transport, or store pseudo petroleum products. On June 18, 2004, the lower court determined that the above judgment was identical to that of the Defendant’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of this case’s 80th.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to blanket crimes.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)