A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found Defendant A guilty of the instant facts charged, even though Defendant A’s pharmacy provided a supplementary explanation as to the drug under the direction and supervision of the pharmacist, and the pharmacist working for the above pharmacy sold the drug by designating the drug.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the defendant's each fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted that mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are the same as the contents alleged in the original judgment.

The court below rejected the assertion in detail under the title "the defendant's assertion and judgment".

In the judgment of the court below, the defendants asserted to the effect that G was given guidance while paying the price to G. However, according to the voice file (Evidence No. 174 pages) which recorded the situation at that time, Defendant B appears to have been paid the price and the voice that G was given a medical guidance during that process (the above voice file Nos. 2 and 58 seconds to 3 minutes and 23 seconds to the above voice No. 58 seconds, and the beginning of this case by asking whether E is a pharmacist) as follows, the court below's conviction of all the charges of this case is just as stated in its decision.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The facts that the instant crime was induced by E by reporting a person who violated the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act by reporting, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.

The defendants do not oppose the mistake while denying the crime.