A. The defendant was operated by mistake of fact;

G L L L was delivered to 1, a person in charge of the business of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the pharmaceutical company”) in G, but H did not place a propool order with G Mpool, and H delivered 250 propools (50 milliliterss) to G in the sexual surgery (hereinafter “instant medicine”).

G calls from the instant medicine department to the effect that “I returned the instant medicine because it was not ordered,” and he stored the instant medicine in the way of the operation room. After two to three days, the instant medicine was dead, and was found to have been returned to H., and only after the planning and joint inspection conducted by the Food and Drug Safety Control Board on November 3, 2015, it became aware that the instant medicine was not returned to H.

As can be seen, the instant medicine was not entered in the management ledger of a local mental medicine since it was known that it was immediately returned to H after the instant medicine was delivered in G including the Defendant. As such, the instant medicine was not entered in the management ledger of a local mental medicine.

Even if there was a criminal intent to establish a false management ledger

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged to the same effect in the lower court, and the lower court specifically stated the grounds that found the Defendant guilty at the lower court’s bottom of “a summary of evidence”.

In addition to the judgment of the court below, if the court below and the court below were to return the instant medicine as alleged by the defendant, i.e., the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., (i) where the instant medicine was returned as alleged by the defendant, the G sexual surgery and the side of the G had prepared a document for transferring narcotics, obtained approval from the public health clinic, and returned it to H through the selective distribution company, but such procedure was not followed; and (ii) according to the Defendant’s assertion, the instant medicine