Defendant

A is a pharmacist operating a pharmacy, and Defendant B is a person employed by Defendant A for public relations activities of a pharmacy.

1. A pharmacy founder, a drug dealer, or any other person who is entitled to sell drugs pursuant to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act shall not disturb the market order of drugs or induce consumers by improper means, such as providing premiums, such as prize items, gift items, etc., or soliciting consumers, etc.;

Nevertheless, on June 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) divided the name of the E-Contracting in order to attract patients from receiving medical treatment at G Hospital in front of the G Hospital located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and (b) provided oral guidance on the location of the pharmacy, and (c) provided visitors with a view to attracting consumers, etc. by using the method, such as moving the pharmacy to the pharmacy.

2. Defendant A, who is an employee of the Defendant, committed a violation as described in paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Since basic facts are identical and there are no substantial disadvantages to the defendants' exercise of their rights to defend, the facts constituting the crime are recognized as above without any changes in indictment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. Each statement prepared by H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a name box;

1. Relevant Article 97 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment: The main sentence of Article 97 of the same Act, Articles 95 (1) 8 and 47 (1) of the same Act, and the choice of fines

1. Defendants to be suspended from sentence: Fine of 300,000 won; and

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day);

1. The Defendants: (a) the Defendants are located in a place where the E pharmacy operated by Defendant A under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act is not well-known in the G Hospital’s emotional health; and (b) the Defendants’ intent to inform the location of the E pharmacy was partially recognized; and (c) some of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime are to be considered.