The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The number of seized E gas stations shall be four (No. 1 to No. 1).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case is limited to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) (hereinafter “Habitual Fraud charges”).

The Defendant asserted that, in the summary of pleading (i.e., April 2016), the crime of habitual fraud and the crime of violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, which were submitted after the submission period, constitute an ordinary competition, and thus, cannot be aggravated.

However, this can not be a legitimate ground for appeal as the argument that was filed after the expiration of the period for submission of the written reason for appeal, and even after ex officio examination, each of the above crimes cannot be evaluated as a single act because the legal interests are different from each other.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted from what mother.

A. The facts charged (misunderstanding the legal principles) should be deducted from the amount of profit if, due to the nature of the alteration program installed by the Defendant, a gas station is charged in a fixed quantity with less than 20 liters and less than 2-3 consecutive oil stations less than 20 liters thereafter.

However, the facts charged of habitual fraud of this case do not specify the date and time of damage, the amount of damage between the victim and the victim is not specified, and only the method, period, and total sales during the period of crime are stated.

Therefore, the defendant's main oil content less than 20 liters and the main oil content less than 20 liters and not more than 2-3 consecutive oil content, resulting in a major disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right of defense.

Therefore, the facts charged of habitual fraud of this case constitute a case where the indictment procedure is invalid in violation of the provisions of law because the facts charged are not specified.

B. The Defendant’s mistake in calculating the profit amount (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) is merely a defraudation of the price equivalent to the part below the net quantity in the beginning, and is also a kind of primary oil according to the customer’s order.