The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant had the intention to sell the relics at the time of the instant case, but the court below acquitted the facts charged in the instant case by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a petroleum retailer running B.

No petroleum retailer shall sell products, such as oil, etc. as fuel for automobiles under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, and vehicles and machinery prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, at around 14:10 on September 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) used his E-Sale Vehicle (Tank L), which is in custody of light oil and oil in Ulsan-gun C, for one’s own E-Sale Vehicle (Tank L) in Ulsan-gun; (b) opened a oil valve installed in the mobile vehicle and oil valves for which the flow of oil cannot be identified.

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

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant could not be readily deemed to have sold the same kind of petroleum products as indicated in the facts charged on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, in full view of the following: (a) in a case where the oil tank stored in the tank glass with two kinds of petroleum products in each tank and attached to the tank glass is one day; (b) one kind of petroleum product remaining in the tank be mixed in a case where it is sealed by operating a tank eroke in which different kinds of petroleum products are stored; (c) the above method of oiling is not unlawful; and (d) when comparing the unit price of light oil and light oil with the unit price, the administrative disposition, such as the instant case, etc. is not significant; (d) while the ownership of the instant petroleum product was being mainly traded with the Defendant even after the instant case; and (e) the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient.

C. The judgment of the court below and the trial court are legitimate.