석유및석유대체연료사업법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant conspired with I to fully recognize the fact that pseudo petroleum was sold at the gas station in this case; and (b) the Defendant was not guilty of the facts in collusion with I; (c) the circumstance or necessity for which the Defendant was employed as the head of the branch office named as the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant received KRW 2 million per month from the name lending fee for a period exceeding three years; and (d) the Defendant
2. Determination
A. The gist of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, in collusion with A, sold pseudo petroleum of KRW 1,140,000 to many unspecified customers in the instant gas station from November 2, 2009 to April 26, 2010, the Defendant purchased pseudo petroleum of KRW 1,908,360,000, and stored pseudo petroleum of KRW 16,100 in the instant gas station for the purpose of sale by purchasing pseudo petroleum of KRW 16,100 from a person with no name and with no name. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22190, Apr. 26, 2010>
B. The court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to view that K, a real operator of the instant gas station, was aware of the fact that the Defendant had sold pseudo petroleum in the instant gas station, based on the following: (a) it is highly probable that K had known the Defendant of the risk that K would regulate the investigation agency; (b) K would not have any special reason to pay 10% of the profits from selling petroleum in addition to the name lending in return for the name borrowing; and (c) A, H, I, J, N, andO, who worked in the instant gas station, was well aware of the fact that the Defendant had sold pseudo petroleum in the instant gas station.
C. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., L, which recommended to lend the name of the gas station in this case, did not have any evidence to deem that the Defendant sold pseudo petroleum at the gas station in this case, and ②.