A. The defendant's employee, a mistake of facts, sold "S" according to the direction of the defendant who was in a dispensary in the pharmacy at the time of this case. Even if Eul sold drugs without the defendant's instructions, the defendant sold drugs with the defendant's implied and presumed consent since he was in a dispensary at the time, and the defendant actually sold drugs. The defendant did not neglect to exercise due diligence and supervision for the non-sale of drugs, but the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (i) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to whether E sold the drugs according to the Defendant’s instructions, namely, (i) the E, an employee E’s symptoms of unsatisfying on January 17, 2012; (ii) immediately after hearing the symptoms of unsatisfying on January 17, 2012; and (iii) even if the Defendant was in a dispensary at the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s cancellation interest is not entirely limited to the video at the time of the instant preparation; and (iv) the E did not perform his body or her behavior toward the preparation room without the direction of the Defendant. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Shebly, even if the Defendant was in a dispensary at the time, whether the Defendant could be deemed to have sold the drug by selling the drug with the Defendant’s implied and presumed consent, E is the implied and presumed consent of the Defendant.