2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and is against the law.

The Defendant did not have any criminal record or a fine exceeding the same criminal record or fine, and is the most likely to support two minor children. However, the Defendant sold fake petroleum products up to approximately KRW 1.7 billion in total, and committed a systematic and planned crime by dividing the roles and roles with accomplices.

The defendant has been living for a long time and has been exempted from punishment due to this case.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions in this case, including the character, conduct, environment, circumstances and result of the crime, balance of punishment with accomplices, the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court [the scope of recommended punishment] in the basic area (one year to three years) of the three types of fake petroleum products (large-scale (large-scale (large-scale (large-scale (large-scale (scale of 500,000 liters)) (one year to three years)], etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is appropriate, and it is not recognized that the punishment imposed by the court below is too unfair.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the part of “the pertinent Article of the Act and the choice of punishment regarding the crime 1.” in the application of the law of the court below ex officio pursuant to Articles 44 subparag. 3 and 29 subparag. 1 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, which read “the choice of imprisonment” as “Article 44 subparag. 3 and Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act” is corrected as “the determination of imprisonment.”