The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and for a defendant B, for eight months, and for a defendant C.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (unfair sentencing: imprisonment of two years, confiscation, confiscation, 127,838,960 won, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year, and Defendant C: imprisonment of six months) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the crime of this case not only harms the sound distribution order of petroleum products, but also risks undermining the performance or safety of vehicles, and is likely to cause a similar crime, and thus there is a significant social harm. The size of fake transit sold by Defendant A and B is considerable and its sales period is not short. Defendant A commits the crime of taking over the approaching media in the name of Defendant C while operating a gas station in the name of Defendant C, and the transfer of the approaching media requires strict punishment as it can be abused for other crimes.

However, the Defendants appears to have led to the confession of and reflect against the instant crime; the Defendants did not have the same criminal history; the content ratio of light used in the manufacture of fake transit is high; and the quality of fake transit seems to have not exceeded the quality standards stipulated in the public notice of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy; Defendant A appears to have not suffered substantial benefit; Defendant B shared the proceeds of the instant crime with Defendant A other than monthly wage as an employee.

There is no evidence to see that Defendant C only transferred the access medium to the pro-friendly relationship with Defendant A, and received the consideration for the transfer of the access medium.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to support the Defendants’ economic situation, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is somewhat unreasonable, taking account of the following circumstances.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the defendants' appeal is with merit, and the following decision is rendered again after pleading.

[Re-use]