The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, B, C, and D among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months and by imprisonment for defendant B.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is inappropriate as it is too unafford that each sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, three years of probation, four years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, confiscation, one year of probation, one year of probation, one year of probation, one year of community service, one hundred and twenty hours of probation, one defendant E: one year of probation, one year of probation, two years of probation, one year of probation, one year of probation, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) that the court below sentenced the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A, B, C, and D Defendants are deemed to have violated the purpose of legislation of petroleum and alternative fuel business that they intend to protect consumers by securing the distribution order of petroleum products, and even if they are deemed to have no previous or penal penalty, the crime of this case is recognized to have been committed by Defendant A, C, and D, as if they conspired with cargo drivers and sold them through fake transit, by manipulating a credit card sales slip. Defendant B, knowing that the above Defendants were aware that they committed the above act, provided oil to them for use in the crime, and aided and abetting the above Defendants to commit the crime by providing them a credit card body size in the name of gas stations that they operated, and by providing them with the aforementioned physical size of oil stations. Defendant A, C, and D sold fake transit to general consumers at the gas stations that they operated, thereby impairing the purpose of legislation of petroleum and alternative fuel business that they intended to protect consumers by securing the distribution order of petroleum products. The crime of this case was committed repeatedly over a large number of occasions through a long period of time; Defendant C’s 1300 million won or alternative subsidy where the above Defendants sold petroleum products.