Defendant

The judgment of the court below against A and the judgment of the court below against Defendant C except for the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

1. Progress of lawsuit and the scope of trial of this court;

A. The Prosecutor brought a summary prosecution against Defendant A and B for a violation of the Medical Service Act as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 25284, and the trial procedure was submitted to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 201Da5908, and the Prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the Defendants for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., Medical Service Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc."), violation of the Medical Service Act, and the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.") by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 201Da1635, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act by sentenceing Defendant A a suspended sentence of 2 years, community service hours, additional collection of 80,090 won, Defendant C’s imprisonment with labor for one year, additional collection of 1,7240 million won.

Defendants appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing.

B. As seen above, since the part of violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act against Defendant C, which was acquitted among the judgment below, has been separated and confirmed, the subject of the judgment by this court is limited to the remaining part except that of violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act against Defendant C.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. If Defendant A’s accomplice’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles is to collect the value of the profit actually earned by each accomplice, and if the individual amount of profit cannot be known, the total amount of profit should be collected equally, and thus, the amount of additional collection against Defendant A is unreasonable.

Nevertheless, the court below collected all the amount of profit to Defendant A, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. ( natives) and the violation of the Medical Service Act among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant C, Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts, from February 2011 to March 2011.