logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.05.29 2019노242
석유및석유대체연료사업법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the circumstances leading up to the detection of the Defendant in the summary of the grounds for appeal, seven construction equipment at the site, only the Defendant was supplied with petroleum products at the construction site of this case, and the statement of enforcement public officials complying with the facts charged, etc., the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, in so determining, as stated in the facts charged, erroneous determination of facts.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who operates a Criju station located in Gunsan City B.

No one shall manufacture, import, store, transport, keep, or sell fake petroleum products.

Nevertheless, at around 10:10 on August 24, 2017, the Defendant opened a supply valve, such as the supply valve and the supply valve of the E-Cro vehicle, a vehicle moving and selling the gas station in the construction site of the military apartment, and simultaneously manufactures and sells fake petroleum products, which combines light oil with light oil by oiling it to the fuel tank of the Fcomp construction equipment located in the said tank at the same time, and from August 23, 2017 to August 24, 2017, the Defendant manufactured and sold fake petroleum products in total seven times in the same manner as the list of crimes in attached Form 2,696,724 won at the market price.

B. The lower court stated in detail the grounds for its determination, and stated that G was immediately closed at the time of arrival at the construction site for the purpose of inspection. However, it cannot be ruled out that there was a possibility that G was a mistake that the Defendant was able to close the oil valves, such as the suspension of the gasing pressing by dividing the oiling pressing, and in particular, the Defendant did not photograph the oil valves at the close of the oiling valve.

arrow