2. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case is that the Defendant purchased and sold petroleum from a person in a name in the process of selling petroleum without issuing a tax invoice, etc. from a person in a name in the process of selling petroleum; the amount of petroleum sold (around 349,00 liters), the amount of petroleum sold (a total amount of KRW 3,840,00, a total of KRW 1,708,784,000), and the legislative purport of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, which aim to develop the national economy and protect consumers, need to be punished corresponding thereto.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and paid a penalty of KRW 30 million due to the crime of this case, and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal appear to have been considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there are no new changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, occupation, background of the crime, family relation, and criminal record, as shown in the deliberation of the court below and the party, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of the discretion or is too uneasible.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.