약사법위반등
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Fines 6,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence against each of the Defendant A (the first instance court: the fine of KRW 3,00,000, the confiscation, the second instance court: the fine of KRW 3,00,000, the confiscation, the confiscation, the additional collection of KRW 42,273,813) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s punishment (fine 2,00,000,000, and confiscation) against the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by Defendant A prior to the determination of the ex officio judgment on Defendant A.
This Court held two cases of appeal against the two judgment of the court below jointly and tried, and each offense against the defendant A, which the court of the court below decided, is a concurrent offense under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to one punishment in accordance with Article 38(1)
In this respect, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained.
B. We need to take into account the fact that Defendant B’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is the primary offender, and that Defendant B acknowledges his mistake.
However, such circumstance appears to have already been reflected in the judgment of the court below that sentenced a fine of two million won to the defendant, and there is no special circumstance or circumstance that may be newly considered in sentencing after the decision of the court below.
In addition, in full view of the motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, and various factors of sentencing as shown in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is deemed too heavy.
Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. According to the conclusion, without further proceeding to decide on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A, the part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act are reversed ex officio, and the following is again decided as follows.
Defendant
B The appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is without merit.