The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the form of punishment) of the lower court is unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake and reflects his fault; (b) the Defendant was suffering from the suspicion of a solvents supplier in the course of having difficulties in management of gas stations; (c) the combined solvents and e.g., the proportion of milk is less than that of general fake oil; (d) the Defendant fulfilled his best efforts to stabilize the employment of workers even in business difficulties; and (e) the Defendant fully repaid his obligations related to the operation of gas stations even in the state of suspension of business.

2. Although the judgment of the court below did not have been punished as the same power, there was no history of punishment heavier than a fine, and there was a defendant's wrong judgment, considering the fact that the defendant manufactured and sold a huge amount of fake petroleum products in a systematic and planned manner over a long-term period, and all other circumstances, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, which are the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, are too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.