All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts did not know that Defendant A supplied N oil and requested her refined solvents to V, but he did not know that the refined oil supplied to N was used in the manufacture of fake petroleum or that the refined petroleum supplied for the purpose of removing identification for the use in the manufacture of fake oil.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) The prosecutor (1) of the court below’s sentence against Defendant A (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

(2) As to Defendant F, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and acquitted Defendant F of the charge of aiding and abetting Defendant F in violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act.

2. Determination

A. (1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport in the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts. Accordingly, the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated: ① C, D, and E, which actually carried oil without material of this case and the removal of identification materials, are Defendant A, and the person who mainly instructed or arranged the transport of light oil of this case, and the person who notified the site of “a biter” in relation to the transport of light oil by using the method of “a biter” is also the person who notified the site of “a biter”, and the freight charges are also paid from A; ② Defendant A and the person who stated that the freight charges were paid from Defendant A were stated in the site; ② Defendant A and the person who transported the oil of this case was the defect of supplying the oil to “bringer oil” and supplied the oil of this case to “WD-100” and did not actively create the appearance of Defendant A through Article 3.