Manufacture, etc.)

(b) Violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act;

2. B

Law Firm E (LLC, Attorneys F and G (Defendant B)

Where a defendant A fails to pay the above fine, a period of KRW 1 million converted into one day shall be confined in a workhouse.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant A and the above sentence against Defendant B shall be suspended.

One mobile phone terminal (H) and one mobile phone terminal (1), one mobile phone terminal (K), one mobile phone terminal (K), one mobile phone terminal (N), one mobile phone terminal (N), one mobile phone terminal (N), one product related to manufacturing (heat, fire-proof system), one book, one bank in the name of us, one bank in the name of us, one bank in the name of us, two passbook in the name of us, two passbook in the name of us, two passbook in the name of us, two passbook in the name of us, two passbook in the name of us, one bank in the name of us, one bank in the name of us, one bank in the name of AF bank, one bank in the name of us, one bank in the name of AF bank, one bank in the name of AF Bank, one bank in the name of AF Bank, one bank in the name of AF Bank, one bank in the name of AF Bank, one bank in the name of AF Bank, one bank in the name of AF Bank, one bank in the name of AB.

1. Defendant A

The Defendant is a ice which rapidly enables the synthesis, etc. from a single domination agents (in 2000 to a single domination process) and has side effects such as female-type explosion, toxicity, etc. The Defendant’s products have side effects, such as holdingra, Mason, Dianbol, Pobol, Anavar, Anadro, Stanzol, Twitol, Trobol, Twitol, Pabol, Maol, Mtrox, Machine, Mtrox, CY3able Value, Equate, Macuate, Macol, Macton, Trenton, E-ray, E-rayed 200, E-mail, E-mailed 30,000, male Product No. 130,000, male Product No. 50, and so on.

(a) A person who intends to import an imported drug, etc. without permission shall obtain permission from or file a report with the Minister of Safety of Food and Drug for each item, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister;

Nevertheless, on March 12, 2012, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Food and Drug Safety or filing a report, the Defendant purchased a short-term fluoride system equivalent to KRW 1,320,000 from AT in China via the Internet at the home of the Defendant, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on March 12, 2012, and received it from the said house through international mail.

From August 29, 2011 to January 14, 2014, the Defendant imported drugs equivalent to KRW 114,513,850 in total over 167 times, as shown in attached Table I, without obtaining permission or reporting from the Minister of Food and Drug Safety.

(b) A person who intends to engage in the business of manufacturing non-licensed drugs and manufacturing drugs under non-sanitary conditions shall be equipped with necessary facilities in conformity with the facility standards prescribed by Presidential Decree and obtain permission from the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, and no person shall manufacture drugs at a place that may cause harm to public health and sanitation or that fails to meet the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Food and Drug Safety on October 201, failed to meet the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree, which could cause harm to public health and sanitation due to the lack of pollution prevention and destruction germs, at the home of the above Defendant. At around that time, the Defendant manufactured a 100 protecide dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp 1 liter by dividing 10 lyp lyp, a drug imported in China, into 100 lyp lyp l's container, and attaching a rubber l'm l'm l'm l'm.

From that time until January 2014, the Defendant manufactured a total of 443,680,000 won at a place that does not meet the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, and without obtaining permission from the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, at least 5,796 of the total sum of 443,680,000 won as shown in Annex II of the Crimes List II.

(c) No one, other than a pharmacy founder, and a pharmacy founder, may sell drugs, and no one shall sell drugs without obtaining import permission or filing a report thereon;

Around March 18, 2009, the Defendant, at the home of the above Defendant, received a purchase order from B for reinforced land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land preparations imported from B without obtaining import permission or filing a report as described in the above paragraph (a), and sold the short-to-land-to-land-to-land preparations to KRW 6,000,000.

From that time until November 5, 2013, the Defendant sold drugs without obtaining permission or filing a report of import amounting to KRW 435,120,000 throughout 262 times, even though it is not a pharmacy founder, as shown in attached Table III.

2. Defendant B

No one, other than a pharmacy founder, may sell drugs, and no one may sell drugs without obtaining import permission or filing a report thereon.

On May 23, 2012, the Defendant purchased a short-term gludroid medication, which is a medicine imported without obtaining import permission from A, at the Defendant’s house located in the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City AU, and then sold 750,000 won to AV and sent it to her home.

From that time until October 28, 2013, the Defendant sold drugs without obtaining import permission or filing a report equivalent to KRW 204,135,000 on a total of 281 occasions, even though it is not a pharmacy founder, such as attached Table IV.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Statement made by each prosecutor of the suspect examination protocol against the defendant A;

1. An investigation report (report on request for the manufacture of labels of drugs, such as a suspect AW and AX short-flus file), an investigation report (execution of a search and inspection warrant and obtaining of Sticks file), an investigation report [report on the purchase confirmation of 13,20, 14,70 items for manufacturing medicines through the AB mark], an investigation report (report on the details of transfer abroad of a suspect), an investigation report (report on the details of deposits from the accounts in the name of A, Y, Z, and BA), an investigation report [report on the details of additional transactions in the bank (P) account in the name of 0 in the name of the Republic of Korea (0) submitted by A, an investigation report (report on the request for the manufacture of labels, such as 5,296 items, etc. in the A science of the suspect), a report on the investigation [report on the contents of medicines handled], a report on the purchase of medicines deposit in the AB list, a report on the results of the investigation and identification of the suspect deposit account];

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Article 93(1)5, Article 42(1)2, Article 3(1)2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 31(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (including the manufacture of an unauthorized medicine), Article 94(1)9, Article 62 Subparag. 8 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (including the manufacture of non-sanitary condition medicines), Article 93(1)7, Article 44(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (including the manufacture of non-sanitary condition medicines), Article 93(1)7, Article 93(1)10, Article 61(1)2, and Article 42(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (limited to the sale of drugs by non- pharmacy founders, including the sale of drugs), Article 93(1)10, Article 61(1)2, and Article 42(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (limited to the sale of imported drugs without permission);

(b) Defendant B: Article 93(1)7, Article 44(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (limited to sales of drugs by a non- pharmacy founder, including sales of drugs), Article 93(1)10, Article 61(1)2, and Article 42(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (limited to sales of drugs without permission, and all of them);

1. Commercial competition;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Article 40 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Manufacture, etc. of Illegal Medicines) and those of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act due to the manufacture of medicines under non-sanitary conditions; the punishment imposed on the violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes with heavy punishment; the punishment imposed on the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act due to the sale of medicines by a non- pharmacy founder; the punishment imposed on the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act due to the sale of medicines without permission; the punishment imposed on the violation of the said Act due to the sale

(b) Defendant B: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishment of a punishment prescribed for a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act due to the sale of medicines by a person who has established a non-pharmacy, the crimes of which are heavier);

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes and the violation of each Pharmaceutical Affairs Act shall be selected.

1. Imposition of fines concurrently;

Defendant A: Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, which is the largest of the punishment provided for in the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Manufacture, etc. of Illegal Medicines)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant A: Articles 53, 55(1)3 and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Confiscation;

Defendant A: Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. The assertion that it does not constitute an act of manufacturing a drug;

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant A’s act of subdividing a large volume of short-sized glocks by dividing them into a small volume container as stated in Article 31(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act does not constitute “manufacturing” under Article 31(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

B. Determination

1) The term "manufacturing of drugs" under Article 31 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act refers to an act of manufacturing drugs to meet the general demand. It includes not only chemical transformation or refining of raw materials for drugs, etc. by chemical methods, but also processing that does not cause chemical change by combining a small quantity of drugs and a small quantity of drugs. It does not constitute a processing as mentioned above, and it does not constitute manufacturing of drugs by putting them in boxes after separating and packaging them separately. However, it does not necessarily constitute an act of manufacturing drugs by putting them in boxes after formally separating and packaging each drug, but it does not necessarily constitute an act of manufacturing drugs by putting them in boxes again, and it does not necessarily constitute an act of manufacturing drugs by taking into account all the circumstances such as manufacturing facilities, manufacturing methods, product appearance and nature, product use, explanation and publicity contents at the time of selling, and awareness of the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 203Do43298, Jul. 22, 2003).

2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is determined that the act of newly packing the large volume protein system by dividing it into a small volume container as described in Article 1(b) of the judgment of the defendant A constitutes “manufacture” under Article 31(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. The above assertion by the defendant A and the defense counsel is not accepted.

① Defendant A imported a single-sized closion in a large volume container of 10, etc. through an Internet site, etc. that sells a single-sclosion system. The foregoing large volume container is not indicated in a free disease or plastic container. The manufacturer, name, etc. is not indicated.

② Defendant A disinfected small capacity clocks for injection use and small capacity clocks for static use using electronic sirens, etc., and subdivided clocks into the above small capacity containers using blocks for blocks. Defendant A covered injection clocks into rubber clocks, covered clocks with rubber clocks, sealed clocks with clocks, industrial clocks, etc. Thereafter, Defendant A then added clocks for clocks at regular selling places, such as AX and B, which were sent by the above seller, to make clocks for clocks or clock files for clocks, and attached the above small capacity clocks. As can be seen, Defendant A or B calculated clocks for clocks with the maximum production volume of clocks and so on.

3 Defendant A created the English homepage of “AW”, and introduced the above-mentioned drugs as if they were regularly sold by Company AW, and advertised them, and sold a short-term fluoride preparations with AW labels attached to the contact persons via the above website. In addition, Defendant A posted a notice on the Internet bulletin board to sell a short-term fluoride thesis for AW, AX, BB, etc., and sold a short-term fluoride preparations with AW, AX, BB labels by exchanging contact with largephones.

④ As above, it is sufficient for the society to recognize that a small volume of large volume so-called so-called so-called so-called “sliding agents” and “sliding agents” of large volume, which are most likely to be recognized as a separate product from the standpoint of ordinary people.

2. Claims concerning the quantity of medicines manufactured;

A. Summary of the assertion

The defendant A cannot be deemed to have made a single-clateral system, such as the statement in paragraph (1)(b) of the judgment, by subdividing it into a single-clateral system.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court lawfully adopted and investigated evidence, i.e., ① Defendant A was charged with manufacturing the same quantity of drugs as indicated in Section 1(b) in its holding on the basis of the quantity recognized as having been subdivided into it after being provided with the details of purchase of small volume containers and the details of sale of short-sized containers from the investigative agency during the investigation process, ② Defendant A attempted to manufacture the part of the raw materials in the short-term bloid system imported as indicated in the attached Table I with other substances, and failed to do so. Defendant A’s assertion that the part of the raw materials in the short-term bloid system imported from Defendant A was subdivided into KRW 100,000,000,000 from KRW 10,000,000,000 from KRW 1 to KRW 20,000,000,000. Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A purchased the part of the complete portion from KRW 1 to KRW 10,000,00.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

Defendant A, without obtaining any qualification, permission, or facilities for the import, manufacture, and sale of medicines, manufactured a protegroid system by importing a protegroid system in a non-sanitary environment. In particular, Defendant A, who directly works on a body, manufactured medicines without having any equipment to destroy sacrific equipment with a high risk of side effects. In addition, Defendant A manufactured the aforementioned medicines on the English website or Internet bulletin board as if they were food products, and sold them through e-mail, e-mail, or spophones. Accordingly, Defendant A had a large amount of profit, thereby causing significant risk to the health and life of the general public.

However, Defendant A manufactured drugs that do not manufacture new ingredients or efficacy by mixing, transforming, processing, etc. of various kinds of drugs or ingredients, but manufacture them in the form of subdividing existing drugs. In addition, Defendant A has no penal power.

In light of the above circumstances, all the sentencing conditions, including Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined as per Disposition.

2. Defendant B

Defendant B committed the same type of crime as the instant crime around September 2008, and even though the above judgment was rendered on February 2009 and became final and conclusive, Defendant B committed the instant crime of the same kind.

However, Defendant B, as a health club player, sold it to those who requested the purchase of a short-term fluor system in the surrounding area. From the perspective of Defendant B, Defendant B seems to have been able to mislead Defendant A as if Defendant A were a fluorous product, the short-term fluor system manufactured as if Defendant A were a fluorous product. In addition, the profits earned by Defendant A from the sale of the short-term fluor system are only about 1/4 of the sales amount indicated in the facts charged.

In light of the above circumstances, all the sentencing conditions, including Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined as per Disposition.

Judges Park So-young

Judges, Senior Superintendent-General