A. In fact, Defendant A, a pharmacist, sold “school director” and “dilog’s pension,” which are the instant over-the-counter drugs, in accordance with Defendant B and H’s implied presumption order. This, in fact, was sold by a pharmacist and sold drugs by a person who is not a pharmacist.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (for the Defendants: KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. At the same time, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act stipulates that a person who is not a pharmacist or a pharmacy may not establish a pharmacy (Article 20(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act), and also prohibits the sale of drugs by a person who is not a pharmacist or a pharmacist working at the pharmacy (the main text of Article 44(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act). The legislative purport of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is to ensure that the sale of drugs is likely to affect the public health, and thus, it is inappropriate for a person to leave the sales of drugs to the public’s free will. As such, it generally prohibits the sale of drugs by cancelling a general prohibition only for a pharmacist qualified through a certain test (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1967, Oct. 9, 198). In addition, the legislative purport of the above provision is to prohibit the sale of drugs without a doctor’s prescription in cases of over-the-counter drugs that can be sold without a proper selection and taking advantage of the drug, such as the name, dosage, efficacy, effect, storage methods, and mutual side effects of drugs.