Defendant

A Imprisonment for eight months, Defendant B's imprisonment for four months, and Defendant C's fine for KRW 7,00,000, respectively.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a petroleum retailer that operates I with G in F in the Gyeonggi-si in the Gyeonggi-si in the Gyeonggi-si, and with H in the wife population H in the Gyeonggi-si.

No petroleum retailer shall sell light oil as fuel for motor vehicles.

Nevertheless, around 17:15 on July 2, 2015, the Defendant sold 1,000 won per 1 liter using a oil supply device (2,00 liter tank, shotter, alcoholic beverage, etc.) installed in a spump difference in the name of the Defendant in Ansan-siJ in Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, and after receiving KRW 1,000 per 1 liter per 1,000 per 1,45 liter for oil, such as K dump truck, which is a part of a vehicle in the state.

From August 2, 2013 to July 2, 2015, the Defendant, as well as the Defendant, sold a total of 638,365 liters (total market price equivalent to KRW 809,962,310) over 540 times, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

2. The defendant B is the operator of the (ju)C established for the purpose of the project of aggregate and civil engineering in the Yak-gu L in Gyeonggi-si, the Gyeonggi-si, and the 19 branch admission vehicles are registered in the above (ju)C.

Around August 2013, the Defendant provided, at the office of the said state office, to the borrower of the said sub-owned vehicle, the said sub-owned vehicle stated, “I will sell lue oil as fuel for a motor vehicle. It is possible to deal with credit if it is sold.” The Defendant introduced the said sub-owned vehicle to the borrower of the sub-owned vehicle. From September 12, 2013 to June 23, 2015 at the request of the borrower, the Defendant paid the lue share of the re-owned vehicle to A, such as paying the share of the re-owned vehicle from the borrower.

As a result, the defendant introduced the borrower to A, received the payment, and remitted it to A, thereby facilitating the crime of violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act.

3. The Defendant (State) C, as set forth in paragraph (2), was negligent in exercising due care and supervision to prevent the Defendant from committing a crime in violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, even though B, who is an operator of the Defendant, was easy to commit the crime.

(i) the evidence;