The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principle) is that the Defendant’s act of selling medicines against the founders of veterinary clinics via Internet shopping mall does not constitute a case where the founders of pharmacies under Article 50(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act sell medicines at the “place outside the country of medicine”. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 50(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. The legislative purport of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, the purpose of which is to contribute to the improvement of national health by ensuring the propriety of pharmaceutical affairs, or that a person who intends to establish a pharmacy shall not engage in the business of a pharmacist, such as establishing a pharmacy or preparing drugs, by establishing a pharmacy. A person who intends to establish a pharmacy shall prepare facilities necessary for the facility standards prescribed by Presidential Decree, and shall, in principle, register the establishment of the pharmacy under the conditions as prescribed by the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. In light of the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act that, in principle, only a pharmacy founder is able to sell drugs at a place other than his/her pharmacy or store, the provisions of Article 50 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act that "shall not sell drugs at a place other than his/her pharmacy or shop" should be interpreted to the effect that all or part of the series of acts constituting the sale of drugs, such as the main text, preparation, delivery, and taking guidance, should be interpreted to the effect that it should be done within the pharmacy or by a method that can be seen equally in the process of selling drugs (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do384, supra.).