Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A is a limited company K (hereinafter “K”).

(2) The judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant A of violating the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act was erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. (2) The sentence of the court below against Defendant A of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the remaining Defendants other than the defendant H (hereinafter "the defendant H"), although the defendant A and C conspired to sell miter oil owned by the victim K and embezzled it on duty, the court below found the defendant A and C not guilty of the occupational embezzlement, and found the defendant A and C not guilty of the acquisition of stolen goods against the defendant D, F, and G, despite the confession, there was an error in the misunderstanding of facts against the law. 2) The court below's each punishment (the defendant's fine of KRW 10 million against the defendant) against the defendant (the defendant's 2) (the defendant's fine of KRW 7 million, the fine of KRW 7 million against the defendant F, the fine of KRW 3 million against the defendant G, and the fine of KRW 2 million against the defendant H:2 million against the defendant).

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, Defendant A can be recognized as having sold Defendant D andO through Defendant C or Q while recognizing the fact that the oil could be sold to a person who is only a shipping agent of the inland oil at the time. Thus, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

In the course of the distribution of oil, the temperature of oil, etc.