beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds delineated below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is unreasonable.
1) As to the portion of license lent from January 10, 2012 to March 31, 2012, the Defendant had actually worked at the pharmacy for the above period and had the pharmacist work.
Therefore, even though it can be evaluated as engaging in E and Dong business, the license was lent to E.
It is difficult to see it.
2) As to the portion of license lent from April 1, 2012 to July 31, 2012, the Defendant lent the license to E even if the Defendant, from January 10, 2012 to March 31, 2012.
Even after that, the defendant directly operated the pharmacy by taking over the pharmacy to E.
However, since the defendant was unable to pay the acquisition price of a pharmacy and the defendant borrowed money from E to pay money, only he paid the profit of the pharmacy to E even thereafter.
2. Determination 1) As to the leased portion of a license from January 10, 2012 to March 31, 2012, “loan of a license” prohibited under Article 5(3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act refers to the lending of a license itself, even though another person knows that he/she is a pharmacist as if he/she is a pharmacist, using his/her license (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6829, Jun. 24, 2003). Therefore, insofar as a person, who is not a pharmacist, opens and operates a “D pharmacy” in the name of the Defendant, it may be deemed that he/she lent a pharmacist’s license, and the circumstance that the Defendant was employed by the Defendant for a pharmacist does not affect the establishment of a crime.
2) As to the portion of license lent from April 1, 2012 to July 31, 2012, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, on the same ground as the reasoning stated in its reasoning, lent the pharmacist’s license to E even during the pertinent period.
The decision was determined.
The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.