The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “advertisement” under Article 61(2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, “sale” under Article 19 of the Food and Drug Management Act, and amendments to indictment, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

According to the record, the Defendant did not assert that there was an error of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the scope of application under Article 61(2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act while appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and only on June 21, 2018, following the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, the Defendant asserted the above assertion.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s assertion of misapprehension of the above legal principles is limited to the following after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it cannot be deemed that such assertion constitutes an ex officio investigation under the proviso of Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or omitting judgment, etc. in its judgment that did not consider such assertion as the subject of adjudication.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.