The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) The medicinal herbs as indicated in the judgment of the court below did not indicate them as medicines on the outside packaging, containers, etc., and did not meet the minimum formal requirements as medicines, and thus does not constitute over-the-counter drugs or prescription drugs as defined in the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and thus are agricultural products not medicine under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. (2) The Defendant did not store and display the medicinal herbs for the purpose of sale, but has

Therefore, although the defendant stored and displayed drugs for the purpose of sale, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the legislative purpose and purport of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and the contents and purport of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act that define drugs, the term “pharmaceuticals” under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act includes both those used for the purpose of diagnosing, treating, alleviating, alleviating, treating or preventing human or animal diseases other than those listed in the Korean Pharmacopoeia, or those used for the purpose of exerting pharmacological influence upon the structure and function of human or animal, and thus, its component, shape (container, package, design, etc.), name, regardless of the existence or absence of efficacy in the pharmacological action, and the purpose of use indicated therein, efficacy, efficacy, effect, usage, volume, publicity or explanation at the time of sale, other than those recognized as only a food or agricultural product as being used for the above purpose, if it is recognized as being used for the above purpose or claimed as having efficacy, all of them shall be construed as subject to regulation under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act by treating them as medicine.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4785 Decided October 14, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do988 Decided August 23, 2007, etc.). The lower court is lawful.