logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.09.10 2015도7860
석유및석유대체연료사업법위반
Text

The judgment below

Among them, the part of the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act of November 23, 2013 is reversed, and this part is reversed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act from June 27, 201 to August 1, 2011

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: Co-defendant B and the Defendant conspired to sell them via transit by mixing them with light oil; from June 27, 201, the Defendant conspired to sell them via transit.

8. Until January 1, 200, the Defendant, in fact, operated the above gas station in the SK GG station operated by the Defendant located in Namyang-si, and the Defendant is in charge of the order and supply of petroleum, and B manufactured pseudo petroleum products by inserting pseudo petroleum products into the diesel tank with the Defendant’s instructions while working as an employee at the above gas station, and selling pseudo petroleum products during the above period.

"The facts charged are that only charged was charged with selling pseudo petroleum products which are related to a single comprehensive crime, and even according to the above facts charged, as long as the whole time, completion period, place of crime, total sale quantity, etc. are specified in the facts charged, the facts charged is specified, and even if the sale quantity is not specified separately from daily sales, the object of the trial is unclear.

or the defendant may not be deemed to cause difficulties in defending him.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the ground of appeal that the lower court erred by violating the law regarding the specification of the facts charged.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court, based on its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of violating the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act by selling 453,550 liters from June 27, 201 to August 1, 2011.

arrow