The judgment below

Defendant V is reversed.

Defendant

V. A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.

However, Defendant V.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant Qu, R, T, and V (1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant V) ① Defendant V is the case of 2014 high-priced70 charges on Defendant V.

Of the facts charged, the part of the “concept of participation in the crime” is unlawful because the time and place of the act is not specified.

② Defendant V did not have received or consented to any proposal from BB to transport “welified petroleum” on the oil pipelines, and Defendant V did not know that the instant oil was a duty-free oil and that it was a stolen oil. As such, Defendant V did not intend to transport stolen oil.

(2) The sentencing of the lower court on the above Defendants (Defendant Q: 3 years of suspended sentence on the two-year imprisonment; 2 years of imprisonment on the two-year imprisonment; 2 years of imprisonment on the two-year imprisonment; and 2 years and six months of imprisonment and 1 year and six months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

B. Of the instant charges, the prosecutor (1) misjudgmentation of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (as to the Defendant T, U,V, W, and X), the Defendant T, U’s special larceny, Defendant V, W, and X’s habitual transport of each of the instant charges is part of the case.

In relation to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, 150,00 liter via 50 times as shown in the facts charged, including Defendant T and U, and the fact that Defendant V, W and X habitually transported 150,00 liters over 12 times or 20 times as indicated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the amount of oil that the above defendants stolen or transported and the frequency of crime, and by denying the habitualness of Defendant V, W and X.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing against the above Defendants (defendant Q and R) is so unfair as to be too uneasible.

2. The grounds of appeal for mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant V and prosecutor are as follows.