(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.21 2016노1533

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.21 2016노1533

약사법위반

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A or Defendant C, a pharmacist of mistake of facts, heard the customer’s talk while he was in a dispensary to prepare the prescription drugs of the hospital, and informed Defendant A or Defendant C of the location of the drug at the pharmacy, and ordered Defendant A or Defendant C to deliver the drug to customers according to the instructions. As such, Defendant A or Defendant C, a pharmacist, only sold the drug, and does not sell the drug by a person who is not a pharmacist.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendants guilty of each of the facts charged in this case.

B. Since the video images submitted by a public prosecutor by misunderstanding the legal principles have taken a pharmacy inside the pharmacy without a pharmacist's permission, they shall be deemed as inadmissible as illegal evidence collected in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendants guilty of each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000 for each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act stipulates that a person who is not a pharmacist or a pharmacist shall not establish a pharmacy (Article 20(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act), and at the same time prohibits the sale of drugs by a person who is not a pharmacy founder or a pharmacist working for the relevant pharmacy in principle.

(Article 44(1) main text of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. The purport of the same provision is to ensure that the sale of drugs is likely to affect the national health, and thus, it is inappropriate to leave the sale of drugs to the national freedom, and thus, to generally prohibit the sale of drugs and allow the sale of drugs by cancelling the general prohibition only to those who are qualified through a certain test.

Supreme Court Decision 198.8

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.11.07 2014노611

-대법원 1998. 10. 9. 선고 98도1967 판결

-대구지방법원 2016.07.22 2015노831

-창원지방법원 2015.06.10 2013노1708

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.29 2015고정2162