2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment as to sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal principle, each of the instant crimes are examined in accordance with the foregoing, the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act that prohibit a pharmacist from strictly restricting his qualifications to improve national health and health, and are less likely to undermine the national health insurance premium and the financial soundness of the National Health Insurance Corporation, which is the basis for public health insurance.

Even if it is not possible to see that the amount of deception exceeds 300 million won, and considering the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and trial process, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too large, and thus, is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit.