1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the contents stated in paragraph (2) to the statement stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8

2. The addition;

A. On June 11, 200, the following is added to the judgment of the court of first instance.

“(4) The instant vehicle may individually serve the transit and light oil by opening the opening and closing hole of each shooting room using the operation server, but it shall be one oil pipe, flow meter, and oil station (hereinafter “oil station, etc.”).

(2) As a result, the Plaintiff’s use of a specific petroleum oil (B petroleum) causes a problem of oil filling by mixing it with B petroleum in the event of oil oil filling, etc. However, in order to prevent such a problem, the Plaintiff opened the B petroleum shooting room immediately after the Plaintiff’s oil filling, and stored the petroleum remaining in B petroleum oil filling, etc. with B petroleum shooting room, and carried the oil remaining in B petroleum oil filling, etc. into B petroleum as well as 4% of the oil oil being loaded into B petroleum. The Plaintiff’s mixture of the instant vehicle with approximately 4% of the oil being loaded on the instant vehicle does not intend by the Plaintiff, but by mixing it with the Plaintiff’s petroleum products with the “in the process of smugglinging,” only some of the petroleum products, such as petroleum products, which were stored in the 15% of the instant vehicle’s structure, including the instant case’s mixing with the instant 4% of the petroleum products.

‘The' is investigated under suspicion of violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, but the Changwon District Court on April 25, 2017.