beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.02 2018노3398

송유관안전관리법위반

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not have any objective data to prove that the Defendant purchased petroleum as non-material in the course of operating a e-oil station, and thus, 436,328 liter, which is the difference between the amount of petroleum sales confirmed by sposing equipment and the amount of petroleum purchase by normal methods, should be considered as the actual quantity of oil flow. 2) The above punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the prosecutor’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the original judgment, and the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, deemed that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant stolen petroleum of 436,382 liters exceeding 81,00 liters, and determined that this part of the facts charged was not guilty on the grounds of appeal.

(1) There is no specific ground to acknowledge that the difference between the amount of petroleum sold and the amount of petroleum purchased reported to the Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority, which was verified by the Defendant’s distribution of oil stations operated by the Defendant, has occurred due to total theft of petroleum.

② Rather, the court below stated in the court below that “I gas station, the defendant operated at the time of the above escape period, paid cash in transactions of intangible petroleum in the vicinity of Seocheon-si, and supplied petroleum as zero-free materials, and some of them were supplied as E-gas.” The occurrence of a difference between the amount of petroleum sales and the amount of petroleum purchase in the E-gas station is difficult to exclude the possibility because the petroleum purchased as non-data is included in the above.

(3) The defendant is related to the fourth interrogation of the police, the second interrogation of the suspect, and the flow of such examination at the court below.