2. Determination is recognized as follows: (a) the Defendant reflects his mistake; (b) there is a family member to support the Defendant; and (c) there is no other criminal history except once punished by a fine on 2005; and (d) the difference between the oil and light oil is paid to drivers; and (b) the Defendant does not directly acquire profits equivalent to the difference between the oil and light oil.

However, it is necessary to strictly punish crimes of manufacturing and selling pseudo petroleum products since social harm, such as the emission of environmental pollutants, disturbance of distribution order of petroleum products, tax evasion, etc. is serious when using pseudo petroleum as fuel for automobiles, and the defendant extended funds by paying as if he had sold a large amount of pseudo petroleum products for a long period of time at three stations and paying as if he had passed through, and refunding the difference to freight drivers. Although the defendant did not directly acquire profits equivalent to the difference between pseudo petroleum and light oil, it appears that he would have acquired considerable profits in operating the gas station, such as securing a cargo driver to receive the same amount of profits rather than selling it, even if he did not directly acquire profits, it appears that he would have obtained considerable profits in operating the gas station, such as securing a cargo driver to receive the same amount of profits rather than selling it, and there is no reason to view that the defendant's criminal punishment against crimes similar to the crime of this case is equitable, age, character and conduct, occupation, family relationship, circumstances of each of the crime of this case, the circumstances and circumstances of each of this case, etc.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit.