Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who operates a gas station under the trade name of "D gas station in the city of official residence", and Defendant B is an employee who works as a gas station in the above gas station.

1. Defendant A petroleum retailer shall not supply petroleum products or alternative fuels in violation of the business methods, which undermine the sound distribution order of petroleum and alternative fuels;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, who is his employee, violated the operating method of the petroleum retailer by moving and selling the transit as described in the following two paragraphs with respect to the gas station business.

2. Defendant B petroleum retailers shall not supply petroleum products or alternative fuels in violation of the business methods, which undermine the sound distribution order of petroleum and alternative fuels;

Nevertheless, around 08:35 on August 1, 2012, the Defendant violated the business method of the petroleum retailer by moving and selling the transit by using the G tank lorri vehicle of the above gas station to the freight vehicles of F from E to F one ton of the cargo vehicles at the public port.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the first trial record;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. Notification of the results of distribution and quality inspection, inspection marks observing order in petroleum distribution, application of written confirmation Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 48, Article 46 subparagraph 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act and Article 39 (1) 8 (Selection of Fine): Defendant B: Article 46 subparagraph 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act and Article 39 (1) 8 of the same Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse;

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel regarding the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order, may be found to have been harmful to one ton of cargo vehicles by using tank lorries at the time and place in the judgment of the Defendant B, but this is against the Defendant B, who did not originally have no intent to own the vehicle for cargo.