The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds for appeal (the factual errors) recognized dolusently that D intended to use oil purchased from D as a fuel for construction machinery, and thus, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the intent of the crime of this case includes not only the conclusive intention but also the so-called dolusence, which is the intention to recognize the occurrence of the result, and there is no circumstance to see the crime of this case differently from the ordinary crime, the crime of this case may also be established by the willful negligence.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant, even if do not do so, knew that he/she purchased light oil as a fuel for construction machinery and sold light oil without allowing it.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is not accepted, since there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

1) The Defendant supplied transit to D for several years and sold transit for several years in 2017. According to the witness D, K’s statutory statement, Defendant’s legal statement, and evidence Nos. 1 (Certification), etc. of the lower judgment, the Defendant continued to supply D (I and H) more than 2017, which was much more than 2017, and as of 2017, the sales amount of transit was more than 450,000 won. On the other hand, even according to the facts charged, even if the Defendant sold transit for the year 2017, the sales amount of transit was approximately KRW 10,000,00, and sales amount was considerably smaller than that of transit. 2) D, not the Defendant, made a request for the supply of oil to D, such as gas stations, and made a request for the supply of gas or electric appliances, in fact, to D (I and H). As of 2017.