The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the violation of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act on the premise that the instant oil falls under petroleum and petroleum products subject to the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court.

In light of the relevant statutes and the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of "petroleum" and "petroleum products" subject to the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 9370, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter the same) or "petroleum sales business" subject to registration under Article 10 (1) of the same Act, and the scope of violation of the above Act or the recognition of illegality.

In addition, the lower court’s determination that the instant oil constitutes petroleum under the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act even if the instant oil is remaining after the ship is used, is nothing more than the determination of the family register, and as seen earlier, the lower court’s determination that the instant oil constitutes petroleum under the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act as fuel oil without materials is justifiable. However, even if the lower court’s determination of the family register as above is erroneous as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, it may not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Meanwhile, the Defendant appealed against the entire judgment of the court below, but the remainder.