2019Do11865(A) Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes

Manufacture, etc. (with respect to the defendant A and B partially recognized)

Name of crime: Violation of Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

(b) Violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act;

(c) Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act;

(d) Illegal drugs that violate the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes;

Assistance in Manufacture, etc., (as part of the defendant C, D, and E)

Fixed name of crime: Violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act)

1.(a)(c) A;

2.c. D. C

3. D. D.

4. D. E

5.(a) B

Defendants

Attorney Lee Sung-chul (Defendant A,C, D, and P)

Attorney Lee Jin-jin, Lee Jin-chul (for the defendant B)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2019-79 decided July 23, 2019

November 14, 2019

All appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds for appeal are determined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, C, D, and E

The court below found Defendant A guilty of violating the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Certain Health Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Control of Public Health Crimes") against Defendant C, D, and E, which is a primary charge related to the manufacture and sale of so-called 'Manam and Suwon' herb drugs, and of violating the Act on the Control of Certain Health Crimes against Defendants C, D, and E (aided and abetting of Illegal Medicines). Examining the reasoning of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not exhaust all necessary deliberations in the judgment of the court below and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been sentenced. Thus, in this case where Defendant A, C, D, and E are sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

For the reasons stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below convicted Defendant B of violating the Health Crimes Control Act ( illegal drug manufacturing) which is part of the facts charged against Defendant B related to the manufacture and sale of Dannam herb drugs. Examining the reasons for the judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the court below did not exhaust all all necessary deliberations in the judgment, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the manufacture of drugs, Article 3 (1) 2 of the Public Health Crimes Control Act, Article 31 (1) 1 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 41 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 41 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 41 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and Article 41 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and Article 54 of the Rules on Safety, such as drugs, and Article 51 (1) 2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and Article 81 (1) of the same Act, and Article 41 of the same Act, and the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

The argument that the lower court erred by violating the principle of accountability in determining sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing. However, as seen above, only in the case where a death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is sentenced, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where Defendant B was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment imposed on Defendant B is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Conclusion

All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min You-sook of the District Court

Justices Lee Dong-won