All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the overall circumstances of Defendant A’s instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts only introduced Defendant A to AF, but did not participate in the instant crime, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending of facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion is relatively clear that the social relation of the Defendant is relatively clear and that the Defendant reflects his wrongness through confinement life. However, the crime of manufacturing and selling pseudo petroleum products of this case is detrimental to the legislative intent of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act to protect consumers by securing the distribution order of petroleum products and to protect people’s health and the environment from harmful exhaust gases, etc. generated from pseudo petroleum products, and its nature is not good. The crime is not good. pseudo petroleum products manufactured and sold are up to KRW 3250,525,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000 won, and the Defendant again committed the crime of this case even if there was the history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and all other sentencing conditions such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime

B. Defendant B (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also appealed this part of the judgment below.