(b) Violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act;

2.2.B

3.(a) C.

4.(b)(D)

Attorney Kim Tae-won

Attorney Kim Hyun-soo (the national election for the defendant B)

1. As to the violation of the Medical Service Act by Defendant A, C, and D

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that Defendant C and D did not have any specific prior or ex post facto guidance during the process of conducting a stopy test, and that the act of Defendant C and D conspired with Defendant D and C to have a radiationr who is not a doctor conducted a stopy test constitutes non-licensed medical practice. (1) Most of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'or' prepared by Defendant C and D inspector' expressed that the 'the 'the 's body part of the body part requiring the s to conduct a stopy test' was nothing more than the 'the 'the 'the 's 'the 'the 'or 'the 'the 'the 'or 'the 'the 'the 'or 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ''the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '.'the 'the '.'the 'the '.'the '.

(3) As long as Defendant A was prepared as a result of a re-wave test on the basis of the data transmitted by Defendant C and D, as long as Defendant A was able to find a post-wave test, there was no possibility that Defendant A might find a post-wave test, as long as Defendant C and D were too excessive.

B. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is insufficient. However, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the scope and limitation of duties of radiation specialists and the establishment of a crime of violation of the Medical Service Act due to non-licensed medical practice, or by exceeding the bounds of free conviction due to violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act by Defendant B and D

A. The court below ordered M, who is a pharmacist, the defendant B, the assistant nurse of this case, to separate and combine the medicine as stated in the medical prescription. In the absence of the defendant B, the defendant D, the doctor, instructed M to do the same act. During that process, M did not receive any other specific instructions or supervision from the above defendants, and in light of the size of G hospital, the number of inpatientss, the location of the medicine room, etc., it is difficult to see that the above defendants can command and supervise the above defendants when doing the above act, or that it is difficult to see that the above defendants were in a situation where the above defendants could lead and supervise the above defendants, or that the above defendants committed a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act by causing the preparation of each drug by M in collusion with each M.

B. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the meaning of preparation, such as the reasoning of the appeal, the limitation of preparation of assistant by an assistant nurse, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Min You-sook

Justices Lee In-bok and Lee Dong-won