[1] The meaning of "alternative fuel manufacturing business" that must be registered pursuant to the main sentence of Article 32 (1) of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, and the standard for determining whether such business constitutes

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that the above act constitutes a violation of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act in case where Defendant A, the vice president of the company Gap, produced approximately 600 liter of bredel and injected it into his own vehicle using machinery installed in the company Gap, and Defendant Eul, the vice president of the company Gap, in which he produced bredel 600 liter of bredel

[1] The term "alternative fuel manufacturing business" under the main sentence of Article 32 (1) of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) means manufacturing alternative fuel with intent to continue and return. Whether it falls under this case shall be determined according to ordinary social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the manufacturer's relationship with the original business, motive, frequency, period, mode, mode, method of disposal of manufactured alternative fuel, etc., including the continuation and return of manufacturing act. It does not necessarily require sales or delivery purpose or profit-making purpose.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below that Defendant A’s act constitutes an “alternative fuel manufacturing business” which should be registered pursuant to the main sentence of Article 32(1) of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) on the ground that, in case where Defendant B, the vice president of Defendant A, the vice president of the Plaintiff Company, produced about 600 liter of bredel for about two years and operated by injecting it into his own vehicle, Defendant B’s act constitutes an “alternative fuel manufacturing business” which should be registered pursuant to the main sentence of Article 32(1) of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008), and that such act constitutes a violation of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act without registering with the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy (former Minister of Knowledge Economy

[1] Articles 1, 2 subparag. 12, 31, 32(1), and 44 subparag. 4 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008); Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act / [2] Articles 1, 2 subparag. 12, 31, 32(1), 44 subparag. 4, and 48 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008); Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Yoon Jae-ho

Gwangju District Court Decision 2008No1804 Decided October 30, 2008

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) aims at stabilizing the supply and demand of petroleum and prices and ensuring the proper quality of petroleum products and alternative fuels, thereby contributing to the development of the national economy and improving the people’s lives (Article 1). Article 2 Subparag. 12 of the Petroleum Business Act defines “alternative fuel manufacturing and export-import business” as “business of manufacturing or importing alternative fuels” as “business of manufacturing or importing alternative fuels.” Article 31 of the Petroleum Business Act provides that “Where an alternative fuel manufacturer intends to sell or deliver alternative fuels, it does not restrict the purpose of manufacturing alternative fuels.” Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act provides that an alternative fuel manufacturer’s duty to register alternative fuel with the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy for the purpose of developing and supervising alternative fuel products, other than the purpose of manufacturing and importing alternative fuels, should not be delegated to the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy regardless of its intended purpose.”

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company that manufactures and sells machinery producing bio-fuel fuel, which is alternative fuel, and Defendant 1 is the alternative fuel manufacturing industry that must be registered under the main sentence of Article 32(1) of the Petroleum Business Act, in light of the contents of the Defendants’ original business, the continuousness, and the duration of manufacturing the bio-Engine, and the aforementioned act by Defendant 1, based on the following: (a) from January 2006 to December 17, 2007, he produced approximately 60 liter, an alternative fuel, which is an alternative fuel, using machinery installed in the Defendant Co. 1’s vice president.

Therefore, the court below's finding guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of alternative fuel manufacturing business requiring registration.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)