The judgment below

Among them, petroleum and petroleum substitute fuel business due to the failure to conduct quality inspections on the O products by the Defendants.

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on all the facts charged against the Defendants, and appealed on the ground that the prosecutor misleads the entirety of the lower judgment.

B. The appellate court prior to remand dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants, and the prosecutor appealed on the grounds of violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of legal principles.

(c)

The Supreme Court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of quality inspections under the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act with respect to the portion of violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act due to the Defendants’ failure to conduct quality inspections on the O products in the judgment prior to remand.

The judgment was reversed and remanded to the court of the first instance, and the prosecutor's appeal was dismissed because there was no violation of the rule of law or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the remaining part of innocence.

(d)

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, except for the portion of the non-guilty portion of petroleum and petroleum substitute fuel business due to the failure to conduct a quality inspection of the defendants' O products, becomes final and conclusive separately by the Supreme Court's dismissal decision, the subject of this court's judgment is limited to

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants filed a false report on the O products and sold them, and did not undergo a quality inspection by the Korea Petroleum Manager.

O Products constitute solventss subject to quality inspections before selling or delivering them, and sales of the above products differently from their use cannot be subject to quality inspections.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the facts and violating the rules of evidence.

3. Determination

A. The lower court sold solvents which did not undergo quality inspection as an outer product.

Even if there is a provision on quality inspection as prescribed by the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act.