The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is as follows: ① Defendant A sold over-the-counter drugs as stated in the judgment of the court below under the direction of Defendant B, who is a pharmacist; and this was actually sold by a pharmacist, who is not a pharmacist.

Although it is impossible to do so, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of charges by misunderstanding the facts, and ② even if not, the Defendant A attempted Defendant B, a wife having difficulties in operating the pharmacy, and committed this case’s crime. In light of the fact that the medicine sold by Defendant A is an over-the-counter medicine, the lower court’s sentence imposing a fine of KRW 300,000 on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the fact-misunderstanding, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that a pharmacy may not be established unless a pharmacist or an oriental medical doctor, and no person who has established a pharmacy may sell drugs (Article 20(1) and Article 44(1)). A pharmacy founder may sell over-the-counter drugs without a prescription issued by a doctor or a dentist, and may provide guidance on taking drugs as deemed necessary when selling over-the-counter drugs (Article 50(3) and (4)). As for the sale of over-the-counter drugs, the guidance on taking drugs is “helps a buyer choose necessary drugs without a diagnostic judgment” (Article 2 subparag. 12). The above medication guidance also is permitted only to a pharmacist or an oriental medicine pharmacist who has qualifications through a certain test, like the sale of drugs.

If the customer does not specify over-the-counter drugs, the act of providing customers with professional knowledge to select drugs or selecting drugs on behalf of the customer must be done directly by the pharmacist or herb pharmacist, and only in this case the pharmacist or herb pharmacist sold over-the-counter drugs.