A. D employee of a pharmacy of mistake of facts sold the instant medicine under the direction and supervision of pharmacist, and is not a matter of domestic affairs.

Even if the Defendant did not neglect due care and supervision to prevent the sale of D's drugs, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact that D sold a capsule 10, an over-the-counter drugs to customers without being supervised or instructed by a pharmacy founder or a pharmacist, at around August 20, 2013, even though it is not a pharmacy founder or a pharmacist, it can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent the above acts of D. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing, and examine the judgment of the court below on the argument of unfair sentencing, since the crime of this case is committed against the purpose of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act prohibiting the sale of medicines by a person other than a pharmacist in order to improve the public health, the defendant has the history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and considering all the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the process and progress of the crime of this case, the defendant's age, occupation and occupation, and all other matters concerning sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the defendant's allegation of this

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.