The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

except that this shall not apply.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts, although the Defendant did not sell similar transit prior to June 10, 2012, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the whole guilty portion of the charges, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Since the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, due to the mistake of facts or the sale and custody of similar diesel transit, is in a substantive competition relationship, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the number of crimes, which did not constitute a single comprehensive crime.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the defendants can be found to have manufactured similar transit transit as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of not guilty, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants on each of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion

The sentence of unfair sentencing by the lower court (the imprisonment of two years, the imprisonment of one year, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service work, the defendant C: the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service 160 hours) is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

First of all, the entry of the daily sales log prepared by the Defendant is examined: ① the Defendant recorded the daily sales log without almost being omitted from April 25, 2012 to June 28, 2012, which is the day immediately before the control is over, and ② according to the entry of the daily sales log as above, the delivery volume of the “daily transit 1” on May 5, 2012 corresponds to the total delivery volume of the tank “transport: 1” and “transport: 4”, and the daily sales log made thereafter.