2019No238 Violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act

A South 70. Symar

Prosecutor

Lee Jong-hee (Court Prosecution) (Court of Justice) and Kim Jong-hee (Court of Justice)

Attorney*

Ulsan District Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 296 Decided February 15, 2019

October 11, 2019

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,00,00.

Defendant who has converted 100,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

Although the defendant had the intention to sell the relics at the time of the instant case, the judgment below acquitted the facts charged in the instant case, was erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and the legal scenario year.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant is a petroleum retailer operating ○○ gas station.

No petroleum retailer shall sell products, such as oil, etc., as fuel for automobiles under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Automobile Management Act and vehicles prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2017 . 9 . 28 . 14 : 10경 울산 울주군 ♤♤면 * * * * * * * * 2 ) 2길 24 - 3에 있는 □□산업에서 경유와 등유가 보관중인 자신의 소유 B호 이동판매차량 ( 탱 크로리 ) 을 이용하여 울산 C호 지게차에 55리터의 경유를 주유하던 가운데 이동차량에 설치된 등유 밸브를 개방하여 주유량을 알 수 없는 등유를 주유하였다 .

Accordingly, the Defendant sold petroleum products prohibited from selling as fuel for a vehicle to a petroleum retailer.

B. The judgment of the court below

In full view of the fact that gas stations stored two kinds of petroleum products in the tank glass in each tank and attached to the tank glass are only one case, the court below determined that the Defendant could not be readily concluded that the Defendant had sold the same kind of petroleum products as the facts charged on purpose, on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, by comparing the unit price of light oil and light oil with the Defendant, even if it is likely that mixing would occur if it would occur if it would run the tank server in which different kinds of petroleum products were stored. However, the above drinking method cannot be deemed unlawful. On the other hand, when comparing the unit price of light oil and light oil with the Defendant, the administrative disposition, such as the penalty surcharge, etc., is not significant, while the ownership of the instant oil in this case continues to be traded with the Defendant even after the instant case.

C. Judgment of the court below

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant at the time of the instant case committed an intentional act of selling, such as oil, even though he was aware that at least a considerable amount of oil can be mixed in the process of driving through the instant for the instant for the instant foreup vehicles, and that there was an intentional act of selling, etc. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged in the instant case was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, the prosecutor’

① The Defendant did not make any effort to prevent the mixture, even though he did not make any effort to prevent the mixture by minimizing the quantity of oil generated from the anticipated time that the kind of oil generated through the oil tank varies from the light oil to the light oil, or by separately putting the oil from the light oil, even though he did not make any effort to prevent the mixture.

② The Defendant’s assertion: (a) once 35 liters of light oil were charged to the instant oil holding company; (b) 35 liters of light oil remaining in the gas station, and (c) operated oil gas sprayers in advance, including in order to tightly sell oil at the delivery place; (d) according to the Defendant’s statement that the length of the gas station in the instant oil station is within about 50 meters; and (e) the remaining light oil remaining in the said oil station is about 30 litres and 40 litres from about 55 litres, while being charged with about 35% of the sample collected from the instant oil station, the remaining 20 litres in order to collect about 55 litres, and the above assertion does not coincide with the fact-finding inquiry conducted by the Yong-Nam headquarters on December 13, 2018.

③ As above, the mixture of approximately 35% of the gas stations was mixed with approximately 19.25 g., among the total 55 liters. In light of the quantity of the mixed oil oil, it is difficult to view that part of the oil, such as negligence, was mixed when it was done in the manner of "incluence 20 liters" in order to gas 5 litress like Defendant’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the decision of the original trial is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after the pleading.

again, the reasons for the judgment

Criminal facts

As described in paragraph (1) above.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 46 Subparag. 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act and Article 39 (1) 8 (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

The crime of this case is not against the nature of selling light oil which can not be sold as fuel of the vehicle as a next fuel between the other party and the other party's knowledge.

However, it appears that the Defendant’s crime of this case was discovered at the scene and was actually used as the vehicle’s annual fee, and the Defendant stated that he additionally purchased tank glass in order to prevent confusion after the crime of this case, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances indicated in the trial and records of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account.

Judges Kim Jong-gu

Judges Kim Jong-sung

Judge Lee Il-il