[보건범죄단속에관한특별조치법위반][하집1989(2),450]
The standard of judgment in the case of "not significantly deficient than the content permitted for ingredients of medicines" under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes.
Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes provides that the standard for "brutably lack of content" in Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes refers to a case where the total content of the main ingredients of the drugs is below the minimum effective quantity as at the time of their manufacture, and Articles 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that the minimum effective quantity of the above medicines shall be determined by the Minister of Health and Welfare following the approval of the National Health Institute. Thus, in order to recognize that a combined brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brus
Article 3, Article 8 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule, Article 4 of the same Act
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendants
Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (Supreme Court Decision 88Gohap736, 889)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to two years and six months, and by a fine of up to 150,000,000 won (one hundred and fifty million won) for Defendant 2.
As to Defendant 1, 165 days out of the detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.
However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above imprisonment for Defendant 1 is suspended.
The sentence of a fine against Defendant 1 shall be suspended.
Defendant 2 shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine to Defendant 2.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the facts charged are not guilty that the manufacturing of the Yellow Cheongman who significantly lacks content from June 8, 1987 to November 30 of the same year.
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendants' defense counsel (the supplementary grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant's defense counsel on March 16, 1989 were submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal) is as follows: first, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as Defendant Co., Ltd.) is a de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto.
First of all, considering the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the evidence duly adopted by the court below (the original trial refers to each statement prepared by the non-indicted 1, 2, 3, and 4 as evidence, but each of the above statements is obvious in the record that the defendants did not adopt it as evidence with consent to use it as evidence, so the court below does not adopt it as evidence.) In light of the above facts, the defendant 1 obtained the product approval from the Minister of Health and Welfare in case of the defendant company, the representative director of the board of directors, for the production of the product approval from the Minister of Health and Welfare for 45 milligrams per exchange, and 38 milligrams per company, the main ingredient of which is 38 milligrams, from December 5, 1986 to June 4, 1987, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the above (trade name omitted) from the Minister of Health and Welfare for six months from June 4, 1987, and even after the suspension of manufacturing the above (trade name omitted), the court below's decision of fact-finding 30, 130.7.7.
Furthermore, Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes provides that "any person who manufactures medicines significantly less than permitted contents" shall be subject to aggravated punishment as to the fact that the above (mutual name omitted) manufacturing was made from around June 8, 1987 to January 30, 197 (the above (the above 6th anniversary of ingredients). Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes provides that "the standards for lack of ingredients" in Article 8 of the above 3 shall be separately prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 5 (2) of the Act provides that "the lack of ingredients" means the case where the total ingredients of medicines are less than 1 effective quantity at the time of their manufacture, and Article 3 and Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act provide that "the minimum quantity of active ingredients of medicines" in Article 5 (2) of the above Act is less than 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of No. 5 of No. 9 of No. 5 of the Act shall be found to be less than 6 severe ingredients of the above.
Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the content of the facts charged in the instant case was manufactured from June 8, 1987 to November 30 of the same year. Therefore, inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove the facts charged, the part of the instant facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the facts charged and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below as to the above part cannot be maintained. Meanwhile, the court below deemed this to be a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the facts charged in the instant case from January 12, 1987 to May 29 of the same year. Thus, the court below should not be exempted from all of the judgment of the remaining grounds for appeal.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided after pleading.
Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling medicines, and Defendant 1 is the representative director of the above company who is in charge of manufacturing, selling, etc. of medicines produced by the above company. While the above company was engaged in manufacturing (trade name omitted) by the Minister of Health and Welfare after obtaining the marketing approval from the Minister of Health and Welfare, it was ordered on December 5, 1986 by the Minister of Health and Welfare to suspend manufacturing of the above (trade name omitted) for six months from the date of the above (6) months from the date of the commencement to June 4, 1987 by the Minister of Health and Welfare.
1. Defendant 1 without permission of the authorities:
By using 598 grams and 494g Mali-gu, Gangdong-gu, Seoul from January 12, 1987 to May 29, 1987, the retail price of 30,983 exchange 30,983 exchange 136,325,200 won is manufactured;
2. Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. manufactures medicines without permission, as described in paragraph (1) above, with respect to the business of the above company by Defendant 1, the representative director.
As to the judgment of the Defendants,
1. Each statement corresponding thereto in the original judgment and the trial court of the defendant 1
1. Each statement corresponding thereto in the original trial by Nonindicted 1, 3, 2, 4, and 6 in the original trial.
1. Statement corresponding to the interrogation protocol of Defendant 1 prepared by the prosecutor;
1. Statement prepared by the prosecutor on Nonindicted 6’s statement corresponding thereto
1. Each evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 6 of the seized evidence (one ticket in the year of 86, one ticket in the receipt of raw materials in the year of 87, one ticket in the receipt of raw materials in the year of 86, one ticket in the receipt of goods in the year of 86, one ticket in the receipt of goods in the year of 87, one ticket in the receipt of goods in the year of 86, one ticket in the receipt of goods in the year of 86, and one ticket in the receipt of goods in the year
The so-called "Defendant 1" decision falls under Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, Article 26 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Articles 6 and 3 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, and Article 26 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and Article 26 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. Defendant 1 shall choose a limited term of imprisonment, and a fine shall be imposed concurrently pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. The defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a considerable period of up to 3 years and 4 years and 55 (1) 3 and 6 of the Criminal Act; Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a limited period of up to 2 years and 150,000,000 won; Defendant 2 shall be punished by a fine of up to 150,000,00 won, and fine of the above defendant 27
Of the facts charged in this case, Defendant 1 is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling medicines. Defendant 1 is the representative director of the above company, who is in charge of manufacturing and selling medicines produced by the above company. From September 13, 1984, the above company produced Maul Posul Posul Posul Posul by mixing 45 milligrams per exchange with Maul 30 milligrams and Maul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul Posul 1, 456 gram from June 8, 1987 to November 30 of the above year. Thus, Defendant 1 is found not guilty of Maul Posul Posul Posul Posul 1, 19.34 Ma 17 Masul Posul 1.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judge Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge) Lee Ho-won