When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who sells health food, etc. at the “E pharmacy” located in Ansan-gu, Mayang-gu.

Although the Defendant was not a pharmacy founder (including a pharmacist or herb pharmacist working for the relevant pharmacy) but could not sell or obtain drugs for the purpose of selling, the Defendant, without a pharmacist’s license, sold to customers KRW 4,000 as an over-the-counter drugs at the “E pharmacy” around October 23, 2014 without a pharmacist’s license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (which is made on the fifth trial date);

1. Partial statement of the witness F in the court;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. A written accusation and a written statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the video CDs of the E pharmacy;

1. Article 93 (1) 7 and Article 44 (1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Amended by Act No. 13114, Jan. 28, 2015);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing order of provisional payment order is the case for which a summary order of KRW 8 million was requested and which is referred to a public trial.

The Defendant appears to have been working for a pharmaceutical company for a long time and in fact engaged in the pharmaceutical business with the “E pharmacy”. The Defendant received a fine of KRW 3 million in June 2013 due to the sale of drugs at the “E pharmacy” and again received a fine of KRW 5 million in September 2013.

Nevertheless, the Defendant committed a crime of selling the instant medicine, and the nature of the crime is not heavy.

In addition, despite objective evidence such as video images at the scene of the crime during the instant trial, there are unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the instant trial tried to avoid liability by making a vindication that is false or not accepted with F along with F.

However, there are no criminal records of the defendant, in addition to the above two times of the fine, and there is no criminal records of the suspension of execution for a long time.