A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

(e).

Criminal facts

On May 2012, the Defendant: (a) knew of the fact that he/she manufactured fake petroleum products by mixing it with soft event, which is a petroleum product, with a certain percentage; (b) even though he/she knew of the fact that he/she manufactured fake petroleum products, using facilities, such as an underground oil storage tank, mother pumps, distribution equipment, etc. in an elderly factory, the Defendant: (c) purchased all of the above elderly factories and facilities from the first police officer of June 2012 to September 7, 2012; and (d) the above, the Defendant manufactured and sold fake petroleum products in an elderly factory from the first police officer of the first instance to the foregoing elderly factory to the first day of September 2012.

As a result, the Defendant aided and aided the crime by facilitating the manufacture and sale of fake petroleum products by the above-mentioned persons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of F;

1. An interrogation protocol of F by prosecution;

1. Statement of seizure by police (for example, No. 27, 44, 138 pages of investigation records);

1. Each investigation report (in cases of attaching a field photograph, a copy of the seized note, confirmation of monetary facts, and attaching a paper paper for purchase in plastic bags at the time of site seizure);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the inspection and photograph of a petroleum manufacturing place, test and analysis result;

1. Article 44 subparagraph 3 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, Article 29 (1) 1 of the same Act, and Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act, comprehensively including the applicable law to facts constituting an offense and the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for aiding and abetting and mitigation;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the charges were unspecified since the amount of the principal offender and fake petroleum products is not specified in Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see the following reasons for sentencing), but the Defendant also stated that, from June 2012, the investigation agency stated that, at the time of the investigation, the Defendant had no objection to the fact that one president and Da were the principal offender, and that, at the time of the investigation agency, “F transporting fake petroleum was carrying approximately 10 times the amount of fake petroleum between approximately 1 month in the investigation agency, and the Defendant lent a factory to the principal offender from June 2012.