The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The facts charged of this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where the Defendant, on December 4, 2015, misjudgments (the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act due to the sale of heavy oil in C) the quality of heavy oil in C sold to the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd., the Defendant is not liable for the AI (State) that supplied heavy oil, and the Defendant is not liable.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. A. Around December 4, 2015, the summary of the charge of violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act due to the sale of heavy oil, the Defendant sold heavy oil amounting to KRW 16,195,140 for KRW 29,00,00, not meeting the quality standards, by connecting a ice with the ship K, which was anchored in Incheon Seo-gu P, by using a tank 43°C vehicle to the ship K, which belongs to the Incheon Seo-gu P.

Accordingly, the Defendant sold petroleum products that do not meet the quality standards of petroleum products.

B. In full view of the evidence in the judgment below, the court below found Defendant A and the defense counsel guilty of this part of the facts charged, and explained the following reasons for conviction in the column of “judgment on the argument of Defendant A and the defense counsel

According to the police statement by the AI staff AF, the defendant brought a direct oil with a vehicle in the side of the defendant, and the defendant and his/her defense counsel also asserted that there was no violation of the quality as long as he/she supplied oil from the oil supply company, such as the AI Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., so the defendant did not receive quality-free oil from the beginning.

I seem to appear.

Although the defendant asserts that there was a result of analysis of the inappropriate quality including foreign substances collected from the damaged company's ship fuel tank, according to the consistent police statements and legal testimony of AD, an employee in charge of vessel management of the victimized company, the victimized company shall be the defendant's tank.