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

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From February 10, 2015 to December 10, 2015, the Defendant is a person who operates a gas station in Pyeongtaek-si B with the trade name “C gas station (Gu D gas station), E is a director of the above gas station in charge of sales settlement, inventory management, etc., and F is an employee who manages gas station from 5 A.M. to 5 P.M. at the above gas station, and G is an employee who manages gas station from 11 A.M. to 11 P.M. at the above gas station.

The Defendant, along with the above E,F, and G, received a proposal from a large number of cargo owners visiting the above gas station, that, in order to provide a business truck borrower with a subsidy to cover part of the increase in the oil tax, the Defendant paid a certain amount per liter (the amount calculated by subtracting a certain amount per liter from the current amount of oil tax less KRW 183.21 per liter) via transit (the amount calculated by subtracting the current amount of oil tax from the current amount of oil tax) to the maximum extent possible, the Defendant paid a false amount exceeding the current amount with the oil purchase card, and then returned in cash the difference between the actual amount of the oil purchase card

The Defendant, together with the above E, F, and G, even though it is well aware that the said cargo owner would unlawfully receive a fuel subsidy, accepted the proposal with a view to attracting large-scale cargo vehicles to customers and obtaining large-scale sales proceeds.

The Defendant, around February 10, 2015, issued a credit card sales slip by settling the amount of KRW 372,00 with the freight vehicle purchase card and immediately returning the difference between the actual sales proceeds to I, as if the Defendant, along with I, of the borrower of the above E,F, G and H freight vehicles, sold the amount exceeding the actual prime flow to I, and as if he sold the amount exceeding the market price of KRW 372,00,00,000 via an oil purchase card, and then, returned to I the difference between the actual sales proceeds. On the other hand, the Defendant, at around that time, made the Victim’s Busan Metropolitan City Office that believed that I would actually have a limited amount of KRW 372,00,00, as a fuel subsidy, to I.