약사법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The meaning of "manufacturer under paragraph (1)" under Article 31 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act includes not only a pharmaceutical manufacturer permitted by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety pursuant to Article 31 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act but also a manufacturer who has not yet obtained permission," and 2) a manufacturer under Article 31 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act refers only to a pharmaceutical manufacturer permitted by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety pursuant to Article 31 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, but also a manufacturer under Article 61 (1) 2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, in light of the legislative purpose of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, the "pharmaceutical manufactured in violation of Article 31 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act" under Article 61 (1) 2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is deemed to fall short of only two requirements of permission for the manufacturing industry, (2) a manufacturing product approval or a product notification for manufacturing and selling items, and thus, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the aforementioned provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.
2. Determination
A. As to the facts charged in this case, the court below held that the "manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (1)" pursuant to Article 31 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act can be deemed to mean a person who has obtained permission to engage in the manufacture of drugs as a business under the interpretation of the provisions of the Act, and that a person who has not obtained permission to engage in the manufacture of drugs does not include this, but sells drugs manufactured by a person who
Even though the above penal provision is not applicable, it is against this interpretation theory.