A. The sentence sentenced by the court below (the defendant C: a fine of 20 million won, the defendant A: a fine of 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against Defendant C is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment below reached approximately 76,00 liters of pseudo petroleum products manufactured and sold by the Defendants and accomplices, and it is disadvantageous to the Defendant A committed the instant crime during the suspension of the execution period due to the same kind of crime by installing facilities, such as storage tanks, distribution circulation cyclers, distribution hos, and main abandonment in storage, and operating directly retail stores and selling pseudo petroleum products, which may cause severe damage to life and property. The Defendant C committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime; Defendant C committed the instant crime during the repeated crime; Defendant A was punished four times for the same crime; Defendant A committed the instant crime during the suspension period of the execution period.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendants did not have much profit from the crime of this case, the degree of participation by the defendant A is mere aiding and abetting, and the fact that the defendant C does not have any record of the same crime is favorable.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as equity in the punishment with accomplices, age, character and conduct, environment, the background of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the Defendants and the prosecutor are without merit

However, among the judgment of the court below, it is clear that "Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act" has been omitted in the last part of the judgment of the court below, and therefore, it is in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.