[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that agricultural redivers do not constitute medicine

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted a person who does not constitute a medicine for agriculture, on the ground that there is sufficient room to regard the above agricultural dystrophism as having sold the above agricultural dystrophism as medicine in light of the composition, shape, name, purpose of use expressed in the judgment, efficacy, effect, usage, publicity or explanation at the time of sale, and the possibility of awareness as to whether the above agricultural dystrophism was a medicine for general public

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 (4) and (5) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, the term "pharmaceuticals" includes all the concepts that are used for the purpose of diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, treatment or prevention of diseases of human beings or animals, and that are used for the purpose of exerting pharmacological influence on the structure and functions of human beings or animals (excluding marbs, machinery, apparatus, cosmetics), and medicinal herbs are extracted from animals, plants, or minerals and have been dried, cut, or refined in their original forms mainly. Whether they constitute drugs as above shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account their component, shape (container, packing, packing, etc.), name and purpose of use indicated, efficacy, efficacy, efficacy, volume, volume, propaganda or explanation at the time of sale, etc., and where it is recognized or claimed as being used for the above purpose except for those recognized as agricultural products or food, etc., the relevant pharmaceutical drugs shall be regulated by the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1597, Oct. 15, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below presumed that individual raw materials are packaged without mixing them and then then then then then then packed them again in boxes, even if they contain some of the raw materials listed in the Korean Pharmacopoeia as packing materials, it cannot be readily concluded that the packaging materials of this case can not be immediately classified. According to the records, the agricultural product of this case was first inserted in the agricultural product special complex for living in agricultural and fishing villages without any processing or transformation of 20 specific raw materials, such as ginseng, mountain scam, scams, scams, mountain scams, mountain scams, and mountain scamscamscams, and it cannot be deemed that they were manufactured as raw materials of this case because they were stored separately in the paper, and they cannot be deemed to have been manufactured as new raw materials of this case because they were stored in the manufacturing industry without any approval of the Korean Pharmacopoeia, and most of the raw materials of this case, such as Korean Pharmacopoeia or Korean medicine, are included in the manufacturing industry.

However, according to the records, those who sold the above farming tobacco of this case, including the defendant et al., enter the above farming tobacco of this case into the 10th place of advertisement, etc. based on the consent of the above farming tobacco of this case. According to the above 1st century, we find that the above 3th anniversary of the above 3th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above farming tobacco of this case, it is hard to view that the above 3th anniversary of the above 3th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the 6th anniversary of the upper 1st of the above 1stal.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds stated above shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to pharmaceutical products, unless the defendant failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or misleads the facts against the rules of evidence, and it is clear that such an unlawful act has influenced the judgment. Therefore, the arguments pointing this out are

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)