The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misapprehension of the legal doctrine that the Defendant sold similar petroleum products to the E Vietnamian driver on September 27, 201 is a vessel investigation.

In addition, as seen above, since the net control over supplying similar petroleum products was over and did not receive sales proceeds from drivers, sales of similar petroleum products was conducted.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. On November 13, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny at the branch court of the Daegu District Court, and on April 28, 2016, which became final and conclusive on April 28, 2016. As such, the crime of the lower judgment against the Defendant and the above special larceny, which became final and conclusive on April 28, 2016, are in a concurrent relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the crime of the lower judgment in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is simultaneously rendered pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

3. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles among the grounds for appeal, despite the existence of the grounds for ex officio reversal, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the above legal principles still has its meaning, and this is examined.

(ii) Ship Investigationra

The term “inhere” refers to an investigation method by which an investigative agency, by means of deception or attack, etc., causes a criminal to arrest a person who does not have criminal intent. Thus, if a person who has criminal intent gives the opportunity to commit a crime or facilitates a crime, it cannot be deemed a naval investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1066, May 14, 2004). After the first crackdown on September 22, 2011, the Defendant did not engage in business, but argued that he/she continued to demand the driver of the foregoing Vietnam or vehicle, who is an employee of the Gu office, sold similar petroleum products without any choice. However, considering the fact that the Defendant sold similar petroleum products on September 29, 201.