[보건범죄단속에관한특별조치법위반][공1992.1.15.(912),359]
A. The case holding that if a person actually manufactures and sells a product as if it was packed and sold the product as if it had been manufactured the “originally friendly Posty Posty Posty Posty Posty Posty Posty Posty Possty Posty Posty Posty
(b) Methods of entering the facts charged and matters proved to be manufactured by the Yellow Dustman who significantly lacks the content permitted under Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes;
A. The case holding that if the product was manufactured and sold as if it was manufactured the so-called “the so-called “the so-called “the so-called one-called one-called one-way one-way one-way one containing 23 g of sulfur and 19 g of shooting, but the product was packed and sold as if it was manufactured the “the original one-way one-way one” containing 45 g of sulfur and 38 g of shooting, the product was manufactured without permission.
B. In order to recognize that the Yellow Postyman was manufactured more significantly than the permitted content under Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, it is indicated that the combined Posty lusium, the main ingredients of the Posty 1 exchange source manufactured in the facts charged, should be included to a certain extent, and that the combined Posty lusium, the minimum effective quantity of which falls short of the minimum quantity, should be proved by the official approval under the Enforcement Rule of the said Act.
(a)Article 3(a) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 26(1)(b) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Articles 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Rule
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendants and Prosecutor
Attorney-at-law
Seoul High Court Decision 88No3661 delivered on July 21, 1989
All appeals are dismissed.
1. As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel
Examining the records, Defendant 1’s act constitutes a case where Defendant 1’s act was manufactured without obtaining permission under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, Article 26(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, since Defendant 1’s act was just in finding Defendant 1 guilty of Defendant 1’s act of manufacturing the so-called anti-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal
Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes provides that "a person who manufactures medicines significantly less than permitted content" shall be subject to aggravated punishment. According to Article 8 of the same Act, the standards for "low lack" in Article 3 of the same Act shall be separately prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 5 (2) of the same Act provides that the standards for " considerable lack of content" in Article 3 of the same Act means a case where the total content of the main ingredients of the medicines is below the minimum effective quantity as at the time of manufacture. Articles 3 and 4 of the same Act provide that "minimum effective quantity" of the medicines under Article 5 (2) of the same Act shall be determined according to the appraisal by the National Health Institute, and the examination of "minimum lack of content" in the above Enforcement Rule shall be conducted by the Minister of Health and Welfare in accordance with the appraisal by the National Health Institute, since the construction quantity (60 % in the case of exchange ingredients) in accordance with the above Enforcement Rule shall be collected in accordance with the above Enforcement Rule, and it shall be recognized that the report of the court below's opinion and the record of the least 0 5 0% of the above.
However, in light of the records, no data can be found that examination was conducted in accordance with the above Enforcement Rule of the Special Measures. However, according to Defendant 2’s 87-year raw material receipts and disbursements, product receipts and disbursements, manufacturer management log, etc., Defendant 2 manufactured 621 gram 621 gram 513 gram 513 gram 513 as raw material during the above period, and Defendant 2 made 32,176 gram 32,176% of the so-called so-called so-called the above so-called so-called the so-called so-called so-called the so-called so-called so-called the so-called so-called the so-called so-called “pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro.
It is proper that the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance on this part of the facts charged and acquitted, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)