logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.03.18 2016노66
석유및석유대체연료사업법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the factual misunderstanding and legal principles, the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed on October 24, 2014 at the Daegu District Court Decision 4050 Decided October 24, 2014, which was punished for the Defendant’s sale of fake petroleum products (hereinafter “previous Judgment”), and sold the fake petroleum remaining after being used for the crime at the time of the Defendant’s death (hereinafter “previous Judgment”). As such, it does not constitute a separate crime because it constitutes an ex post facto act of a penalty, or the res judicata effect of the said previous Judgment also constitutes the facts charged in this case, and thus, the Defendant ought to be acquitted.

Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that fake petroleum products sold by the Defendant in this case are different from fake petroleum products sold at the time of the previous judgment, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant and the defense counsel made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and on the grounds that “a judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” was stated in detail.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, since the defendant can be found to have manufactured and sold fake petroleum products through a large amount of transit, light oil, etc. even after the previous judgment was committed, there is no reason to assert that the defendant sold fake petroleum products remaining after the previous judgment was committed.

Even if the defendant had sold fake petroleum products remaining after sale at the time, the act of selling fake petroleum products is naturally accompanied by the act of manufacturing and possessing fake petroleum products.

arrow