All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (five months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) Although there was a fact that Defendant B introduced Defendant C to G gas stations and contacted or delivered money to Defendant C according to Q’s instructions, there was no fact that there was no involvement or instruction in the operation and work of the G gas stations. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1’s misunderstanding of facts at Q’s request, Defendant C was not aware of the fact that only lent the name of Gju’s station and did not participate in its operation, and that he made fake petroleum products and sold them. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Defendant A was in the position of employee as the head of the management office of the oil station for the sale of fake petroleum products in this case, and the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment other than a fine of 700,000 won due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. However, since social harm such as the emission of environmental pollutants, disturbance of distribution order of petroleum products, tax evasion, etc. is serious when using fake petroleum as fuel for automobile, there is a need for strict punishment for the crime of manufacturing and selling fake petroleum products. Considering the fact that the crime in this case is very poor in light of the organized, planned, and detailed circumstances, etc. of the crime in this case, the substance of the case is distorted by the defense that is difficult to understand from the investigative agency to the trial court, and the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the age and happiness environment of Defendant A, the degree of participation in the crime in this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (A) The lower court’s determination of the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts was duly adopted.