Defendant 1 and 1

Gyeongnam-do

Attorney Yoon Jae-ho

Defendants are not guilty.

Each summary of the judgment against the Defendants shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. Defendant 1 does not make registration to the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy, even though he/she must make registration with the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy;

From January 2006 to December 17, 2007, Defendant 2, located at the ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “number omitted) located in the summer-si, e.g., vegetable materials mixed with Defendant 2, which were used as vegetable materials, waste food, etc., put in the boomer, put in seven hours of 7 hours, and produce a f0 liter diesel for each time from that time to December 17, 2007, producing approximately 3 drum (one drum = 200 litres) monthly, and infusing it into the (vehicle number omitted); and operate it;

B. Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. committed the above act of violation against Defendant 1, the employer at the date, time, and place under the preceding paragraph.

2. Issues and determination of the instant case

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the act of manufacturing alternative fuel through multiple times for the purpose of using it directly (hereinafter “instant act”) falls under the “petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act” in the main text of Article 32(1) of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Act”) and is obligated to register it with the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy.

B. In examining other administrative laws and regulations, (1) there are many cases where certain acts are regulated to be regulated and punished by restricting "only where they are engaged in business" in order to prevent abuse of the State punishment authority and guarantee individual freedom of action (e.g., Article 3, Article 74 (1) 1, Article 27, Article 28 (1) 2, Article 2, subparagraph 1, etc. of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, Article 2, of the Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users Act), and (2) the term "petroleum substitute fuel manufacturing business" in the Petroleum Act is "manufacturing business" in the same manner as "business". (3) In light of Article 2, subparagraph 12 of the Petroleum Act, the Petroleum Act provides that "alternative fuel manufacturing business" refers to the business of manufacturing alternative fuel, and (4) above, it is difficult to say that the act of manufacturing or selling alternative fuel is subject to regulation under the Petroleum Substitute Fuel Act only for the purpose of Article 3 of the Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act.

C. We examine the instant case. Since the instant act is merely the manufacture of alternative fuel for the purpose of using it, not the manufacture for the purpose of selling it to a third party, it is difficult to see that the instant act was equipped with the requisition table of “business or business” or “making it a business,” and it is deemed that there is no reason to regard the instant act as having been conducted only several times, and there is no reason to regard it differently. In the end, it is difficult to regard the instant act as falling under the Petroleum Act, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (In addition, there is no ground to punish the act itself of manufacturing without registration, such as the instant act, under the Petroleum Act).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, each of the Defendants is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Kim Tae-tae