The judgment below

Of the above, the part concerning Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

Seized No. 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of Defendant A, C, and D (Defendant A: Imprisonment of one year and two months, Defendant C, and D: 10 months, and 2 years, respectively) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: one year and two months of imprisonment; 6 million won of fine; 10 months of imprisonment for each of 10 months; 2 years of suspended execution) of the Prosecutor’s original judgment (Defendant C; 2 years of suspended execution) is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s ground for appeal by Defendant A was committed with the instant crime during the period of suspended execution due to his previous department, but is in profoundly against the Defendant, taking into account the circumstances leading to the instant crime, equity with the criminal period and similar gasoline sales, and other various factors of sentencing, the Defendant’s above assertion is unreasonable because the sentence of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the above defendants C and D’s grounds for appeal did not have been sentenced to the previous punishment, but did not have been sentenced to the previous punishment; however, the amount of the crime of this case is significant; the crime of this case is likely to interfere with the adequate quality maintenance of petroleum and alternative fuel and sound distribution order and to create public risks arising from abnormal storage and management, against many unspecified and unspecified persons visiting gas stations, a large number of victims in the modern society where a motor vehicle was an essential product for daily life, thereby causing significant social harm, and other various sentencing factors, the sentence of the judgment below is too unreasonable, and the above defendants’ aforementioned arguments cannot be accepted.

C. Defendant B did not have any past history of punishment; Defendant C, and D did not have any previous record of punishment; Defendant B, C, and D appears to have been involved in the instant crime compared to Defendant A; the degree of participation in the instant crime appears to be minor; equity with other similar cases, and other various sentencing factors, the sentence of the lower judgment is too unfeasible.