Article 26 of the Petroleum Business Act on Prohibition of Production, etc. of pseudo Petroleum Products, and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act

Article 26 of the Petroleum Business Act prohibits anyone from producing and selling pseudo petroleum products by mixing petroleum products with other petroleum products or mixing petroleum products with petrochemicals. Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act prohibits anyone from using gasoline or light oil as fuel for pseudo petroleum products (excluding energy provided for in each subparagraph), and machinery and vehicles under the subparagraphs of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Management Act (hereinafter referred to as “motor vehicles, etc.”) as fuel under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act, which can be used as fuel for gasoline or light oil (hereinafter referred to as “motor vehicles, etc.”). The purport of each of the above provisions is to prohibit the production and sale of pseudo petroleum products from using gasoline or light oil as fuel. Ultimately, in order to maintain the quality of gasoline and light of the legislative purport of Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act, it is prohibited from using pseudo petroleum products as fuel for which it is intended to use pseudo petroleum products as fuel for which it is prohibited from producing and selling pseudo petroleum products or other similar petroleum products.

Article 26 of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Management Act, Article 37 (2) of the Constitution

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney O Sung-sung et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2000No1065 delivered on December 19, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. 50 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 26 of the Petroleum Business Act prohibits anyone from producing and selling pseudo petroleum products by mixing petroleum products with other petroleum products or mixing petrochemicals with other petrochemicals. Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act prohibits anyone from using gasoline or light oil as fuel for pseudo petroleum products (excluding energy provided for in each subparagraph), and machinery and vehicles under the subparagraphs of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Management Act (hereinafter referred to as “motor vehicles, etc.”) as fuel under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act, which can be used as fuel for gasoline or light oil (hereinafter referred to as “motor vehicles, etc.”). The purport of each of the above provisions is to prohibit the production and sale of pseudo petroleum products from using gasoline or light oil as fuel, and ultimately maintain the quality of gasoline and light oil. However, in light of the legislative purpose of Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act, it is prohibited from using pseudo petroleum products as fuel for which it is intended to use pseudo petroleum products or light oil as fuel for the same purpose as that of manufacturing and selling them.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant established a chemical factory, and found that the above 400-liters and Softs, which are petroleum chemical substances from September 4, 199 to September 30, 199, are mixed with 55% and 45% respectively, and produced pseudo petroleum products small dilution agents (one-day small dilution) 175,100-liters as fuel, and that the above small dilution agents were used as fuel for organic combustion engines, and the defendant was aware of the fact that 30-liters and 20,40-liters were sold to 0,000-liters and 30-liters of 40-liters of 10,200-liters of 40-liters of 40-liters of 10,000-liters of 7,000-liters of 30-liters of 4,000-liters of 9,000-liters of 19.

The judgment of the court below on the interpretation of similar petroleum products is just in its conclusion and it is not reasonable in light of the above legal principles on the interpretation of Article 26 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, in light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles on interpretation and application of Article 26 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, or in the misapprehension of facts due to incomplete deliberation, etc., since the defendant used the expression "to sell gasoline or light oil for fuel" for the purpose of using it as fuel such as automobiles using gasoline or light oil as fuel.

In addition, the facts charged in violation of the Petroleum Business Act are in the relation between the production and the sales sector respectively, and it is specified by specifying the time, period, object, production method, total production quantity, sales method, total sale quantity, etc. Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the premise that this part of the facts charged is specified cannot be said to contain a misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of facts charged

In addition, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a minor punishment more than 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor, the argument that it is improper to impose a sentence on the defendant even though the defendant had no risk of re-offending by already disposing of the collapse production plant and paint of this case is unreasonable, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)