A. On the grounds delineated in the part of violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

A) Although it was true that the Defendant sold the crypter’s urology, blood pressure, disguised disease, and crypology, the Defendant emphasized the fact that the crypine was not a drug for the buyer, rather than for the buyer, even though the crypine’s crypology was not helpful to crypitis, or that the cryposis was not a drug.

In addition, the Defendant’s assertion that “the total amount sold and sold at KRW 600,00 per 1st unit of 1,200 to 130 million” is limited to KRW 1,200,000. (B) It cannot be deemed that the Defendant placed an advertisement with the content that may mislead the Defendant to believe that there is medical efficacy and effect.”

The defendant's act does not constitute an "advertisement" prohibited by the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and the defendant has no intention to violate the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

2) Although the part of the violation of the Drinking Water Management Act, the Defendant’s act did not constitute a “sale” prohibited under the Act on Drinking Water Management, since the Defendant’s act did not constitute a “sale” under the prohibition of the Act on Drinking Water Management, inasmuch as the Defendant’s act did not receive the cost of plastic containers, but did not constitute a “sale” under the prohibition of the Act on Drinking Water Management.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of probation, two years of probation, observation of protection, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. On the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.