2018 Violation of the Oil Pipeline Safety Control Act

2018 initially 1758(Separation) Application for a compensation order

A

Locationing (prosecutions), sub-Appellants (public trial)

Law Firm Rate of Law

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

B A.

November 21, 2018

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On August 26, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and two months with prison labor at the District Court for fraud, etc. on August 26, 2015. On June 21, 2016, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence at the Detention House.

【Criminal Facts】

C (Detention of April 19, 2018) from March 2017 to May 2017, C (the prosecution of detention of April 19, 2018) installed a water pressure valve and high pressure embankment to the oil pipelines managed by B located adjacent to the 'Ejundong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do,’ and connected the said oil stations to the storage tank by installing pressure gauge, weight gauge, molecular, etc. on the oil station.

around May 2017, upon receipt of a proposal, the Defendant: (a) agreed with C whether to sell petroleum, while leasing and operating the above gas station; (b) agreed with C, from May 2017 to August 30, 2017, the Defendant used the aforementioned gas station to move petroleum transported into the oil pipeline using the oil station storage tank; and (c) deducted the Defendant’s 39,660,000-liters of gasoline amounting to KRW 39,660,00 in the market price owned by the said Corporation and KRW 51,600-liters of light oil amounting to KRW 51,000,000, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 51,607,000-liters 1) from May 30, 2017 to August 30, 2017.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C, stolen oil owned by the victim FF corporation by using facilities installed in the oil pipelines.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of C’s legal statement;

1. Second prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. A copy of the investigation report (related to overall conditions, such as the installation of a gas station facility at the time of the crackdown), a copy of the investigation report (related to the oil pipelines and E-gas storage facilities), a copy of the investigation report (related to the composition of the E-gas station oil site), a copy of the investigation report (related to the organization of the E-gas station oil site), a flow quantity of the E-gas station and the sale price of the gas station);

Copy

1. Photographs;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records, investigation reports (verification of the period of repeated crimes A), personal confinement status, and judgment;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 13-2 (1) and 13 (1) 2 of the Oil Pipeline Safety Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Dismissal of application for compensation;

Article 32(1)3, and Article 25(3)3 and 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the existence and scope of liability of the accused is unclear and it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in criminal proceedings)

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for not less than two years nor more than twenty years; and

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of thief] Type 2 of thief Act on Special Property (high value property)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Decision of the Recommendation Area] Basic Field, 2 years to 4 years

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and result of the crime, and various sentencing factors specified in the arguments in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the order.

The crime of this case was committed in collusion with C by using special facilities installed by C on the oil pipelines managed by C, and is likely to lead to a large-scale accident, such as explosion of oil pipelines or fire, and the leakage of oil due to the damage of oil pipelines, and pollution of surrounding soil, etc. The Defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime. The Defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime. If the instant crime was not discovered due to the control of B, the Defendant appears to have continued to commit the crime of theft of petroleum. Moreover, if the Defendant was excluded from the return of gasoline 12,695 liter, via 2,57 liter, which was seized at the time of detection of the crime, was not recovered from damage to the victim.

The favorable circumstances of ○: The Defendant appears to have recognized and against the fact that he stolen petroleum itself. While there are many records of criminal punishment due to fraud, etc., the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment due to the theft of petroleum. The Defendant participated in the crime of the theft of petroleum upon the proposal of C, but did not directly participate in the installation of the facility.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

From the end of May 2017 to August 30, 2017, the Defendant, in collusion with C, stolen the gasoline amounting to KRW 135,95,90 of the market price of the victim FF corporation, which is equivalent to KRW 300,564,031, which is the sum of KRW 509,30,301,829, and KRW 328,328, which is the sum of the market price of the oil of KRW 179,737,790, and KRW 329,328, which is the sum of the market price of KRW 300,429,300, and KRW 329,329.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do11, Jan. 20, 201).

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, ① the total amount of petroleum sales of “E gas station” verified from May 2017 to August 30, 2017, which is the maximum period of oil stated in the above facts charged, is 58,423 liter, gasoline 303,959; ② petroleum sales of oil in a normally operated gas station shall be purchased and sold at the petroleum agency, etc. which is officially licensed, and in such a case, the total amount of petroleum purchase of the gas station is 30 liter 30 liter 288,00, gasoline 168,000 liter 30 liter 280 liter 305 liter 96 liter 305 liter 280 liter 305 liter 280 liter 305 liter 280 liter 305 liter 280 liter 305 liter 284 liter 20

C. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the aforementioned facts acknowledged or the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone exceeded 81,000 2 as stated in the facts constituting a crime by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to support the theft of petroleum by 436,3821.

1) There is no specific ground to acknowledge that the difference between the above sales amount and the sales amount was caused by the total theft of petroleum.

2) Rather, the J, a different gas station in Gyeonggi-do, which was operated by the Defendant at the time of the above painting period, provided petroleum as non-material for the transaction of non-material petroleum in the vicinity of Seocheon-si, in accordance with the Defendant’s instructions at this Court. Some of them stated to the effect that the petroleum was supplied as E stations. The difference between the petroleum sales and the purchase volume of the E station is difficult to exclude the possibility because the petroleum purchased as non-material is included in the foregoing.

3) The Defendant, at the 4th suspect interrogation, stated that “C’s deduction of oil from the oil pipelines was 81,00,000 square meters prior to oil oil oil tank oil oil oil oil oil and then delivered the price corresponding to the difference to C in cash. According to the confirmation at the time, the stolen petroleum stated that “the total amount of 80,000 liter 1,00 square meters through large gasoline 30,000 liter 50,000 (Evidence No. 2741,2742 of the evidence record)” (Evidence No. 2741,2742 of the evidence record), and later, during the 2nd suspect interrogation, the Defendant stated that the total amount of oil flow was 81,00,000, on the basis of the contents of cash withdrawal on each day and the amount paid in return (Evidence No. 2811 of the evidence record), and in this Court, the amount of oil flow stated in the prosecution’s account is supported by the Defendant’s objective data that was withdrawn from the account.

4) As seen earlier, C stated that the difference between the purchase quantity reported to the Institute during the third police interrogation and the quantity of spoke weather sales would be the flow quantity at the time of the third police interrogation. However, C stated that at the time of the third police interrogation, C did not know the accurate flow at the time of the third police interrogation, and reversed C’s statement of about 20,0030,000 and the frequency of gambling in the second prosecutor’s office (Evidence No. 2843, 2844 of the evidence record) and this court was seven times. Moreover, C did not participate in the operation of E stations for the above gambling period. As such, C’s statement at the time of the third police interrogation during the third police interrogation appears to have been made by a vague trend.

3. Sub-resolution:

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the facts charged within the scope of the above facts charged

The presiding judge, judges and assistant judges

Judges Park Jong-ro

Judges Park Jae-gu

1) The Defendant stated to the effect that the degree of flow in the fourth police interrogation is a total of 30,000 gasoline (free) and a total of 80,000 square meters (Evidence No. 2741 pages) at the fourth police interrogation (Evidence No. 2741 pages), and thereafter, based on the content of cash withdrawal in the G Bank Account (Account Number H) used at the gas station at the gas station at the second interrogation of the prosecution, the Defendant specifically specified the degree of flow by day as indicated below (Evidence No. 2811 pages of evidence record). Accordingly, the total quantity of flow in each way according to the Defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office should be recognized as 81,000 square meters, and each specific amount should be recognized as 51,00 square meters in favor of the Defendant in relation to the degree of flow per kind.

A person shall be appointed.

2) Considering that the market price of petroleum is changed every day in the investigation stations, the lower selling price of petroleum confirmed by spoling machine (referring to the calculation system used to electronically process the quantity of petroleum purchased, inventories, sales status, etc. in the gas stations), namely, 1,322 won per gasoline 1 L, and 1,097 won per 11,097 won per diesel (Evidence 2509), the market price of petroleum calculated by applying the above price to 81,000 ( Gasoline 30,000, light oil 51,000, light oil 51,000 won) is 39,660,000 won (=30,000 LX 1,322 won), 5,947,000 won (30,0000 won per gasoline 1,000 won per 1,000 won per 11,097,0000 won per 360,500 won per 36,050000 won per petroleum.