석유및석유대체연료사업법위반등
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;
3. Of the facts charged in the instant case
1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, no person shall store at least the designated quantity of dangerous substances at a place other than a storage place or handle dangerous substances at a place other than a factory, etc.
On January 5, 2007, from around January 25, 2007 to around January 25, 2007, the Defendant discarded gasoline in front of the D company located in Kim Jong-si using active coal, and stored pseudo petroleum products of an amount equivalent to 10,000 square meters in a mixture of daily solventss of hydrocarbon oil, and pseudo petroleum products of an amount equivalent to 12,249 square meters in a total of 12,249 square meters in a storage facility without obtaining permission for storage of dangerous substances equivalent to 10,000 square meters in the storage, and 2 plastic storage containers of an amount equivalent to 2,000 square meters in a storage facility.
B. According to Article 35 subparagraph 1 of the former Safety Control of Dangerous Substances Act (amended by Act No. 8621 of Aug. 3, 2007) and Article 5 (1) of the same Act, the crime described in this part of the facts charged is a crime of which the statutory punishment is imprisonment for not more than one year or of a fine not exceeding ten thousand won, under Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), Article 249 (1) 5 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007).
However, this part of the public prosecution should be acquitted in accordance with Article 326 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is obvious that the statute of limitations has been filed on January 19, 2012 after the expiration of the statute of limitations from the time when the above criminal act was committed and the statute of limitations has expired.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is a legal principle.