The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the statement of F, which the Defendant instructed to manufacture fake petroleum products, was reliable, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts that the Defendant failed to instruct the manufacture of fake petroleum products.

2. Determination

A. A summary of the facts charged: (a) The Defendant in violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act is a person who operates an “E gas station” in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; (b) no one may manufacture, import, store, transport, store, or sell fake petroleum products; (c) on February 21, 2013, the Defendant instructed employees F to manufacture fake petroleum products by mixing them with “G” in the E gas station; and (d) manufactured approximately 1,500 liters of fake petroleum products mixed with 10% of their oil in light of the normal light oil; and (e) around 17:45 of the same day, the Defendant submitted a false report to the EM station, stating that he/she had no capacity to file a false report with the EM station in charge of investigating fake petroleum products, such as by carrying fake petroleum products manufactured as above, at the Hump truck, which is an oil delivery vehicle, and transported the same value to the EM station’s office, and (e) the Defendant had no capacity to file a false report with the EM 1, an EF police station.