All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the defendant is against the defendant and the profit gained by the defendant from the crime of this case is not much much much, the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the nature of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor is not good, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. We also examine the argument of the Defendant and the prosecutor.

With knowledge of the fact that the Defendant sold the cargo vehicle as its main utility, the Defendant supplied a large quantity of oil to H and I for a long time, and let them sell the oil to the cargo owner.

Although the Defendant conspired with H, I, and cargo borrowers in sequential order, the Defendant, as if he purchased oil through a credit card terminal in the name of the gas station operated by the Defendant, attempted to manipulate the sales details of the oil purchase card, thereby enabling cargo borrowers to acquire a large amount of fuel subsidies. Although the Defendant did not directly receive the fuel subsidies, the Defendant’s participation in the crime of this case should be deemed to be more severe, considering the series of processes in which the instant crime occurred, even though the Defendant did not directly receive the fuel subsidies.

The Defendant was punished for a crime of violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, and even if he discontinued his station at around that time, the Defendant opened a new GL station and continuously supplied I who is a unregistered petroleum retailer.

In addition, considerable portion of the fuel subsidy that cargo borrowers acquired from local governments has not been recovered.

The above points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and against the victim creative city, deposited KRW 30 million against the victim creative city, and paid all penalty surcharges of KRW 15 million imposed due to the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act.