(1) According to the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below, the facts of the judgment are duly recognized, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation due to the misapprehension of legal principles as to taxable goods or in violation of the rules of evidence.

(2) In comparison with the previous provision on special consumption tax imposed or to be imposed pursuant to the previous provision at the time of enforcement of this Decree under Article 1 subparagraph 2, subparagraph 1 (a) of attached Table 1 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 10982, Dec. 31, 1982), it seems that the previous place where the same case is punished was derived from the alteration of tax policy due to the change in economic circumstances rather than from the reflective consideration that the previous place where the previous place where the same case is applied was unfair due to the change in the legal ideology, the previous place was excluded from the object of taxation using petroleum under the revised Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act, and there is no reason to extinguish the provisional punishment of the crime of this case. Therefore, even if the above Act was amended or amended, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the employment of Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Act or Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(3) Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)