Defendants are acquitted.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant B is a pharmacist who has obtained a DNA pharmacist's license from the Minister of Health and Welfare and establishes a pharmacy in Daejeon-gu E, and Defendant A is a father of Dong-gu and has worked as an employee at the F Contracting State.

Defendant

A, around June 13, 2012, Defendant A sold drugs to customers under the name of the F Contracting State at around 19:00.

B. Defendant B, in relation to Defendant B’s business at the above date, at the above place, had Defendant B sell mecocian drugs to customers who were found in the above pharmacy.

2. Determination

(a) Where multiple actions falling under the name of the same crime are continuously conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and the legal benefits of such damage are the same, each of these actions should be punished by a single comprehensive crime in total;

(B) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3312 Decided August 21, 2001 and Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6288 Decided December 26, 2003, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do6288, Dec. 26,

According to the investigation report (Attachment A, B of the summary order) and each criminal record, the Defendants were issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 by the Daejeon District Court on September 10, 2012 to commit a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act on September 25, 2012 and the summary order became final and conclusive on September 25, 200, respectively. The crime of violation of the above summary order was that “Defendant A sold drugs to customers on May 28, 2012, even if he is not a pharmacy founder, and Defendant B sold drugs as above to his employees.” From April 3, 2006 to May 3, 2006, Defendant B, a pharmacist, operated a pharmacy with the trade name of “F Pharmacy” and sold drugs to Defendant A, not a pharmacy founder, on May 28, 2012, which is the day on which the above summary order was entered, and Defendant A sold drugs after the day on which the instant facts charged was recorded.

6. 13. The fact that the drug has been reported to be sold may be recognized.