[1] Legislative intent of Article 29 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, which prohibits the manufacture or sale of pseudo petroleum products, and the method of determining whether it constitutes such intent

[2] The case holding that a mixture of ratios 1:1 constitutes "manufacturing and selling similar petroleum products" prohibited under Article 29 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, which is prohibited under Article 29 of the Act on the Manufacture of Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, of manufacturing and selling elelcers and submers in a separate container immediately usable as fuel for automobiles

[1] In light of the legislative purpose of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act that prohibits the manufacture and sale of pseudo petroleum products (Article 1), the meaning of pseudo petroleum products (Article 2), etc., the legislative intent of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act is to protect consumers ultimately by preventing pseudo petroleum products with low quality from being distributed as fuel for automobiles, etc., and by securing order in the distribution of petroleum products, thereby protecting people’s health and environment by preventing the emission of low quality exhaust gases harmful to human body and the environment from being exposed to low-quality pseudo petroleum products. Accordingly, whether an act constitutes the manufacture and sale of pseudo petroleum products under the above Act should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, including the legislative intent of Article 29 of the said Act, including the method of manufacturing or selling such products, the completion of products at the time of their manufacture or sale, the purpose and circumstances of their manufacture or sale, the actual use after the manufacture or sale, etc.

[2] The case holding that a mixture of ratios 1:1 constitutes "manufacturing and selling similar petroleum products," prohibited by Article 29 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, where a mixture of these products constitutes "manufacturing and selling similar petroleum products" in a separate container by manufacturing the Eeluter and submers which can be used as fuel for automobiles, etc.

[1] Articles 1, 2 subparag. 10, and 29 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act / [2] Article 29 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Choi Young-soo et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 2008No77 Decided April 11, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. 85 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and defense counsel (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined together.

1. As to the assertion against the rules of evidence

The argument in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit due to the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and it is not acceptable to accept the judgment below, and otherwise, it does not seem to be unlawful in the

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principle

Article 29 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that anyone shall not manufacture, import, or sell pseudo petroleum products, and that such products shall not be stored, transported, stored, or used with the knowledge that they are pseudo petroleum products. Article 2 Subparag. 10 of the Act provides that “pseudo petroleum products” means products manufactured by mixing petroleum products or petrochemicals with other petroleum products or petrochemicals, regardless of their names, and are manufactured for the purpose of using them or using them as fuel for automobiles provided for in Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Automobile Management Act and vehicles and machinery prescribed by the Presidential Decree (limited to those using gasoline or light oil as fuel) (excluding alternative fuel provided for in Article 2 subparag. 11 of the Act). Meanwhile, the above Act aims to ensure the stability of supply and demand and prices of petroleum products and alternative fuel products with the knowledge that they are pseudo petroleum products, thereby contributing to the development of the national economy and improvement of the quality of such products (Article 1), and ultimately, the legislative purpose of Article 29 of the Act, including the legislative purpose of protecting similar petroleum products from sale and sale of petroleum products in light of Article 29 of the Act.

The lower court determined that the lower court: (a) even though small and mediumer and Helcers are not used as fuel for automobiles, etc. separately; (b) it can be used as fuel for automobiles, etc. if small and mediumer and Helcers are mixed in the ratio of 1:1; (c) the Defendant anticipated that small and mediumer and Helcers will be used as fuel for automobiles, etc., mixed in the first time from small and mediumer and parterer in the proportion of 1:1; (d) manufactured one small and mediumer and one part of Helcers in the form of one set and sold them as one set; and (e) the products made up of Article 1 can be used as fuel for automobiles, etc. without undergoing a separate processing process, and thus, can be seen as having the principal ingredients of the fuel for automobiles, etc.; (e) made it possible to treat them differently from finished products such as automobile, etc., and, even if only one of small and mediumer or Melcers products can be independently distributed as fuel for gasoline, etc.; and (e) made it constitutes one set of carbon and one set.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the manufacture or sale of pseudo petroleum products prohibited under Article 29 of the Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The judgment cited in the ground of appeal is not related to the interpretation and application of the law applicable to this case, and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

In this case where a minor sentence to the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for more than ten years, the reason that the amount of punishment is unreasonable shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)