logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.07.18 2017고정604
약사법위반
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a drug wholesaler D in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the first floor.

A drug wholesaler who has obtained permission shall employ a pharmacist to manage the affairs of the pharmacist.

Nevertheless, the Defendant employed E as a management pharmacist from January 2, 2016 to May 2, 2016, made him/her work and did not work normally in the above D, and made him/her do so as to have worked as a management pharmacist of a drug wholesaler, and paid KRW 90,000 per month under his/her name.

Accordingly, the defendant did not have a pharmacist manage the business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (related to attaching a copy of the statement made by public official of the Gangseo-dong Public Health Center);

1. Article 94 (1) 5 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and Article 45 (5) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of KRW 1,000,000 to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In addition, Article 45(8) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act was newly established on December 29, 2015 for the reason of sentencing under Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence (i.e., circumstances favorable to the defendant among the reasons for sentencing) and Article 45(8) of the same Act was newly established on December 29, 2015 (i.e., effective December 30, 2016) that no pharmaceutical duty is imposed on drug wholesalers who entrusted another company with the custody of drugs, and the Defendant’s business size is likely to have been significantly significant, and the sentence as ordered is determined by considering the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant trial, including the Defendant’s age and criminal record.

arrow