The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A’s act of violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act due to the storage of fake petroleum by Defendant A and C (2017 order 830) is connected to the tank inside the tank, and the result of the inspection of samples collected in T1 and T2 ought to be the same. Defendant A’s assertion is difficult to believe, and Defendant A’s suspicion is sufficiently recognized according to the result of the inspection of T2 where a large percentage of fake petroleum is detected. However, the lower court that acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) In light of the fact that Defendant B and C’s storage of fake petroleum, and the fact that Defendant B consistently made a statement to the effect that Defendant B operated the Company with Defendant A during the investigation and the trial of the lower court, the relationship with Defendant A, the office of Defendant B’s employee was adjacent to the storage, storage, storage, storage, and storage of fake petroleum, and the employee’s statement, the facts charged that Defendant B committed an offense in collusion with Defendant A was proven without reasonable doubt.

However, the court below's decision that acquitted the facts charged is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

3) In light of the fact that the Defendants sold petroleum products below the net quantity, the Defendants violated the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (2017 order 3146)’s statements made by anonymous reporters are consistent with the other buyers’ statements, S, and Q, whereas P and X’s statements contrary thereto are reversed in X’s case, and X’s statements reversed the statements made by the lower court in light of the fact that X had been employed by the Defendants up to now, and that X is in the employment of the Defendants, there is an error of misapprehension of the fact-finding in the lower court that acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: fine of KRW 3 million, confiscation, and Defendant C: fine of KRW 3 million) is too uneased.