A. In fact, the Defendant, not by purchasing professional car through C, etc. for the purpose of selling, but by receiving doctor’s prescriptions for one’s own recovery treatment, purchases “lawk car”, which is a special prescription medicine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (hereinafter “the penalty amount of KRW 5,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of fact: (a) even if the Defendant is not a pharmacy founder, the Defendant sells “F Kak” via the Internet, which is a prescription that requires doctor’s prescription over five years from January 201 to March 2016; (b) the Defendant sells more than 20 proxa in one transaction; (c) the Defendant sells more than 50 proxa; (d) the remainder of the transaction; (e) the Defendant regularly purchased more than 50 parts of “f Kakk” through the Internet; and (e) the Defendant asserted that he purchased proxa with doctor’s prescription; but (e) the Defendant did not submit evidentiary materials, such as a prescription, it is difficult to conclude that he purchased only 50 million won for the purpose of medical treatment; and (e) the Defendant purchased only 50 million won for the purpose of acquiring Makkk.

It is reasonable to view it.

In fact, the assertion of mistake is without merit (in addition, the facts charged of this case sold drugs as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table even if the defendant is not a pharmacy founder.

“Inasmuch as this part of the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel does not constitute an assertion of mistake as the ground for appeal). B. The fact that the Defendant made a confession of the instant crime in lieu of the instant crime and reflects his mistake.