A. At the time there was no profit-making purpose for the Defendant with respect to the facts charged by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against Qua, which sold the Ethypt.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 44(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that a person who has established a pharmacy or a person who is not a pharmacy shall not sell drugs. As such, whether there was a profit-making purpose or not does not affect the establishment of the above crime, and further, it is recognized that there was a profit-making purpose for the defendant at the time of considering the contents of conversation between the defendant and Q and video stored in the cellular phone, etc. as stated by the court below. Thus, this part

B. In comparison with the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions, and in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances of crime, and circumstances after crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.