과징금부과처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as follows: (a) the second 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance (2.80,000 won), in addition to the fact that the second 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance (2.850,000 won) is deemed as “2.850,000 won,” and (b) the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that D sells flachising in accordance with pharmaceutical E’s implied or presumed instruction, so D’s act cannot be deemed as an act of selling medicines by a disqualified person.
B. As stated in the attached Form of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes
C. 1) The purport of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act that only a pharmacist sells drugs is to ensure that the sale of drugs is inappropriate to the public health and sanitation to leave the selling of the drugs to the public’s freedom. As such, the general prohibition is generally prohibited, and the sale of the drugs is permitted by cancelling the general prohibition only to a pharmacist qualified through a certain test. Therefore, if an assistant is merely a pharmaceutical’s sales of drugs under an implied or presumed instruction from a pharmacist and the pharmaceutical’s sales of drugs using a mechanical or physical assistant, it is reasonable to legally evaluate that the pharmaceutical sells the drugs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do1967, Oct. 9, 198). 2) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is examined.
In full view of all the following circumstances, the facts and evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence and Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 through 12 (including spot numbers, if any) were to be admitted by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the whole purport of the pleadings, Eul sold a fright to customers with no name under the control of Pharmaceutical Affairs, and Eul impliedly and presumed consented to the sales of D's fright, and therefore, Eul's fright sales of D's fright is practically E.