1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

No person may manufacture or sell pseudo petroleum products or store, transport, or store pseudo petroleum products with the knowledge that they are pseudo petroleum products, but the Defendant, at around 00, kept 12 copies of pseudo petroleum products purchased at 16,000 won per 18 litres from his name in the high village of Kimpo-si (hereinafter omitted) on August 23, 2007, for the purpose of selling 20,000 won per 18 litres from his name in the middle village of Kimpo-si.

2. The judgment of the court below

According to the records, the court below held that on December 14, 2007, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 1.5 million won on the grounds of violating the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (2007Gohap1809) in the Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s Support, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time. The crime of the above judgment is that "any person shall not manufacture, import, sell pseudo petroleum products, or store, transport or keep pseudo petroleum products with the knowledge that they are pseudo petroleum products, and shall not store or handle dangerous goods more than the designated quantity at a place other than a dangerous substance storage place or a factory, etc., even if the defendant was not able to store or handle dangerous goods more than

On April 20, 207, Kimpo-si High Village (hereinafter omitted) of pseudo Petroleum Products, "One-name additives" (20,000 won per 20 litress) installed by the Defendant, at the store of pseudo Petroleum Products installed by the Defendant, were sold in around 20,00 won per 10 liters, and the above additives (20 litress) were stored in six copies for sale purpose and kept pseudo Petroleum Products, and around May 8, 2007, the crime of selling pseudo Petroleum Products as well as pseudo Petroleum Products and the first-class liquid, which are dangerous substances. The crime of selling pseudo Petroleum Products and the crime of selling pseudo Petroleum Products for the purpose of selling pseudo Petroleum Products to 20,000 won per 20,000, and the crime of storing pseudo Petroleum Products and 300,000,000,000 won per 30,000,000,000 tons of pseudo Petroleum Products and 30,063,0,063,0,0.

3. Judgment of party members

Where several acts or acts falling under the name of the same crime continue to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and where the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of these acts shall be punished as a single comprehensive crime, but where the unity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized, each crime shall be deemed to constitute a substantive concurrent crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3172, Sept. 8, 2006, etc.).

On May 8, 2007, the Defendant was subject to seizure of all similar gasolines at the time when he was controlled by the police as a crime of the above final judgment (hereinafter referred to as the "first crime"), and on August 23, 2007, the Defendant committed the crime of this case as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter referred to as the "crime of this case").

The crime of this case was discontinued for three months or longer until the Hasheshesheshed, and the first crime was committed by employing Non-Indicted 1 as an employee, while the defendant alone committed the crime of this case, and the defendant sold oil before and after the control over the crime of this case, and was investigated by the Gyeonggi-gu Police Station. The defendant attempted not to do so thereafter, but he stated that "I had oil to sell the pseudo petroleum product again even though there was no living expenses to be done by the Hashed," and the court of the court below stated that the court of this case was scrapped or a second introduction at the place of the crime of this case after regulating the first crime of this case. Since the first crime of this case and the first crime of this case were stated to the effect that "the supplier of pseudo petroleum product again purchased pseudo petroleum product because it was economically difficult to purchase pseudo petroleum product, it does not affect the conclusion of res judicata effect, it does not extend to the first crime of this case and the first crime of this case."

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment extends to the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding that the first crime and the crime of this case constitute a single comprehensive crime. The court below erred by failing to conduct a necessary deliberation or by misapprehending the legal principles as to a single comprehensive crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Yang Chang-soo