In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Defendant

B is a pharmacist operating a "D Pharmacy", and the defendant A is an employee of the "D Pharmacy".

1. No person who violates the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act by Defendant A may sell medicines unless he/she establishes a pharmacy;

Nevertheless, around March 31, 2016, the Defendant sold drugs to the “D Pharmacy” located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, in spite of the Defendant’s qualification to sell them, after receiving KRW 4,000 (4,00) 4,00, 100 from the “D Pharmacy” located in Nam-gu, Incheon.

2. The founder of a pharmacy in violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act shall exercise due care and supervision over the sales of drugs to prevent an employee from committing an offense.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not give any instructions to customers who are not qualified to sell drugs, such as the above Paragraph 1, when the Defendant received 200 stroke 2 disease, 4,000 stroke 4,00 stroke stroke 4,00 stroke stroke stroke.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. Relevant Article 93 (1) 7 and Article 44 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and the Defendants’ choice of punishment for the crime: The Defendants shall be punished by a fine, respectively.

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act