The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who actually operates an Eriju station in Ansan City D by using the name of the wife C.

No person shall manufacture, import, or sell pseudo petroleum products or store, transport, store or sell pseudo petroleum products with the knowledge that such products are pseudo petroleum products.

On November 30, 2011, the Defendant kept pseudo Petroleum Products 3,500 liters mixed with approximately 5% of light oil, etc. at the above E-gas station and sold them to customers who found the above gas station.

2. However, the Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) F, an employee of the E station, was delivered and sold to the Triju station, and was mixed with the oil remaining from the oil tank for delivery, and was mixed with the oil tank underground transit storage at the waterway stations; and (b) was not intentionally stored or sold by mixing the oil with light oil.

The establishment of facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have such convictions as to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions are to be followed, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilts, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487 Decided April 28, 201, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence, etc., namely, the Defendant was investigated by being exposed to the mixture of light oil, etc. at other gas stations operated by the Defendant around January 19, 201, and was investigated by the fact that the Defendant was mixed with 15% of light oil, etc. at the other gas stations operated by the Defendant, and even during that process, the Defendant claimed that the Defendant was mixed with the tank via the water tank as alleged in the above. However, the Defendant’s withdrawal of a request for formal trial against the summary order became final and conclusive by withdrawing the request for formal trial against the summary order, and the said F did not know that it would have been distorted by the investigative agency.