The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds of appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (three years of suspended sentence in one year and six months, probation, community service, etc.) is deemed to be too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In light of the legislative intent of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act in order to secure order in the distribution of petroleum products and protect public health and the environment, the Defendants’ criminal liability is not less complicated, and the Defendants’ strict punishment is sufficiently recognized in that the quantity of pseudo petroleum distributed by the Defendants is considerable.

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects their mistake in depth, there is no criminal record of exceeding the same kind and fine for the Defendants, the Defendants’ discontinuance of the operation of gas stations, and the Defendants’ refusal to sell pseudo petroleum products, such as the instant crime, again, the Defendants’ act of selling pseudo petroleum products, such as age, happiness, family environment, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, among the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is clear that the "Article 50" has been omitted by mistake in the following subparagraph 5 of Article 37 and Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, among the reasons of the judgment of the court below, and therefore, it is corrected ex officio by adding it in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the