A. In describing the facts charged of aiding and abetting a principal offender, a summary of the facts constituting the elements of the principal offender (affirmative)

B. Admissibility of evidence of suspect interrogation protocol prepared by prosecutor

(c) A criminal subject of a violation of Articles 24 and 22 of the former Petroleum Business Act;

(a) In describing the facts charged of aiding and abetting a specific fact that satisfies the requirements for organizing the principal offender’s offence, which is a prerequisite for the premise;

B. The protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement in the prosecutor's office is not made in a particularly reliable state because the defendant, who was the suspect, affixed a signature and seal in the court and recognized the authenticity thereof.

C. A crime subject to a violation of Articles 24 and 22 of the former Petroleum Business Act (Act No. 3071, Dec. 31, 197) is clear pursuant to Article 29 of the same Act that not only a petroleum retailer or a petroleum refiner or a petroleum exporter or importer, but also his/her employee is a criminal subject of a violation of Article 29 of the same Act.

A. Article 32 of the Criminal Act; Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 312 of the Act; (c) Articles 24 and 22 of the former Petroleum Business Act (Law No. 3071, Dec. 31, 197);

B. Supreme Court Decision 80Do2570 delivered on December 23, 1980, 82Do754 delivered on June 8, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 80Do384 delivered on December 9, 1980

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorney Song-tae, Attorney Lee Jin-soo

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No1900 delivered on October 15, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

The defendants' defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined (for the supplemental appellate brief for the defendant 1 and 2's defense counsel, to the extent that it supplements the above grounds of appeal).

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

The written indictment requires the Criminal Procedure Act to specify the facts that constitute the cause of the prosecution in the facts charged to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts. In the description of the facts charged by the aiding and abetting offender, the detailed facts that meet the element of the principal offender's crime, which constitutes the premise of the indictment, are stated. However, if the prosecutor changed the facts charged through lawful procedures after remand, the court below specified specific facts that meet the element of the principal offender's crime of violation of the Petroleum Business Act or the commencement and execution of the crime of fraud, which is the principal offender, as the object of the judgment is just, and the decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to

As to ground of appeal No. 2

The protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement in the prosecutor's office was made in a particularly reliable state because the defendant who was the suspect affixed the signature and seal in the court and recognized the authenticity of the statement in the court (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Do2570, Dec. 23, 1980; 82Do754, Jun. 8, 1982). According to the records, it is evident that the defendants recognize the authenticity of each protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor in the court of first instance and there is no other evidence to suspect that the contents of each protocol are not reliable and not reliable. Thus, the court below's measure is just after remanding the protocol as evidence since there is no evidence to suspect that the contents of each protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor in the court of first instance cannot be reliable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to admissibility of evidence of confession such as theory of lawsuit.

As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the evidence produced by the judgment below after the remand, the facts constituting the crime against the defendants are duly recognized and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or incomplete deliberation or lack of reasoning.

As to ground of appeal No. 4

A criminal subject of a violation of Articles 24 and 22 of the Petroleum Business Act (Act No. 3071, Dec. 31, 1977) is clear pursuant to Article 29 of the same Act that he/she is not only a petroleum retailer, a petroleum refiner, or a petroleum exporter or importer, but also his/her employee as a criminal subject of a violation of Article 29 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 80Do384, Dec. 9, 1980). Thus, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant 2 guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 29 of the Petroleum Business Act, and there is no ground

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)