Defendant

All appeals filed by D, E, F and Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against Defendant D is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against Defendant E is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant F (1) In determining the facts, there was no fact that Defendant F (1) committed a mistake of facts when M et al., an accomplice, installed a petroleum-saving facility on August 2012.

(2) Inasmuch as the Defendant’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not have a network when installing oil conditioning facilities around August 2012, the fact that the Defendant violated the Oil Pipeline Safety Control Act does not constitute a repeated offense.

(3) The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, community service, 120 hours) against the Defendant C by the public prosecutor and the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant F (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s instant crime against the Defendant C by the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, where the rest of the Defendants knowingly transported or acquired oil from the victim’s oil pipelines, and the liability for such crime cannot be deemed to be mitigated.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant is divided into and against the crime of this case, the defendant committed the crime of this case in order to recover the loaned money to the defendant D (the defendant lent KRW 50 million to the defendant D), the actual gain seems to be almost nonexistent, the amount of petroleum acquired by the defendant is not large, and there is no record of criminal punishment, and the defendant's criminal records, age, character and conduct, family environment, the method and result of the crime of this case, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment against the defendant cannot be deemed unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.