All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court which found the Defendants guilty on the charge of mismisunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendants guilty of failing to supply the erroneous or lubric oil during the period of business suspension.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court erred in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine. ① In order to prevent the Defendants from losing the right to supply the port unions during the suspension of business, the Defendants could not find out other reasons for supplying the port unions, ③ in relation to the supply of the port unions, the Defendants could not supply the oil to be paid by M to Defendant A’s individual claims against the Defendant A’s M business owners, and the Defendants could actually continue to engage in B’s business while offsetting the individual claims against the Defendant A’s M business owners. ② In light of M’s location port, the supply of the oil could not take any profit even with the supply of the oil to the port unions. However, in addition to the fact that the supply of the oil to the Defendant Company was for the payment of the claim against the Defendant A and the continuation of the supply right of the Defendant Company B, the Defendants could not directly supply the oil to the port unions for a different period of time, and the Defendants’ supply of the oil to the port unions with the supply of the oil to the Defendant, which appears to be using the lubric oil to be used to set off.