The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of the facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged in the relevant case finalized with a sentence of KRW 1.5 million by misapprehending the legal doctrine that “after failure from the time of failure by a regular inspection on February 5, 2016, a liquefied petroleum gas sales business without undergoing a regular inspection is not a concurrent crime but a comprehensive crime.”

Therefore, acquittal judgment should be pronounced on the instant case.

B. Sentencing (the sentence of the lower court: a fine of one million won)

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, where a number of acts constituting the name of the same crime continues to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and where the legal interests from such damage are identical, each of these acts should be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the unity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized or the method of committing a crime is not identical, each of the crimes constitutes substantive concurrent crimes.

2) The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above crime is a single comprehensive crime relation in light of the circumstances stated in the judgment, and each of the above crimes is in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes.

The decision was determined.

The above judgment of the court below is just, since it should be viewed that there is a renewal of criminal intent whenever liquefied petroleum gas business operators, etc. do not undergo regular inspections as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and separate crimes should be constituted.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the judgment of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

2) It is recognized that the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, the elderly health is not good, and the Defendant experienced economic difficulties.

(b).