A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Criminal facts

The Defendant is a pharmacist who operates a pharmacy with a trade name, “D pharmacy” in Dao-si.

A person who is entitled to sell drugs, such as pharmacy founders, shall observe matters necessary to establish a distribution system of drugs, etc. and to maintain order in sales, as determined by the President.

However, on October 15, 2015, the Defendant stored and displayed one copy of the manufacturing-over-the-counter drugs for the purpose of sale after the lapse of the time limit for use in the pharmaceutical display stand in the above pharmacy (manufacturing No. 13005, October 6, 2015).

As a result, the Defendant violated the code of practice on distribution management related to safety and quality of drugs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on accusation, written confirmation, on-site photographs;

1. Article 95 (1) 8 and Article 47 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act ( statutory penalty - imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year or a fine not exceeding ten million won for a crime) concerning the relevant crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted in light of the following: (a) the credibility of the witness’s statement that the medicine subject to determination as to the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion was placed on the pre-sale line, not “pre-sale net gambling”; and (b) the possibility that the medicine whose distribution period has expired may be used as a pharmaceutical preparation is sufficient.

On the other hand, since the distribution deadline does not run so much, there is room for the defendant to suppress the distribution deadline.

Even if a crackdownd public official does not seem to have controlled as the defendant's assertion, it does not seem that it is difficult to say that it is true in his specific statement attitude, it is ordered that the defendant bear the expenses incurred in the examination of witness.