The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months, by imprisonment of eight months, and by imprisonment of eight months, and by a stock company.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A asserted the misapprehension of the legal principle by attaching a boiler indicating the name, capacity, warning phrase, and Qu (the trade name prior to the change of Company C) on the outer side of a glass medicine disease containing imported medicines.

Due to these acts, the appearance of the product was changed, and Q is likely to be mistaken for the manufacture of the product from the consumer's perspective.

Therefore, even though such an act constitutes “manufacture” of drugs, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (hereinafter “Public Health Crimes Control Act”), violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act by the sales of illegal drugs by the Defendants, violation of the Public Health Crimes Control Act by Defendant C, and violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the manufacture of drugs.

B. The lower court’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The prosecutor ex officio held that the court below found the defendant A not guilty, the violation of the Act on the Control of Public Health Crimes (Manufacture of Illegal Medicines), the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act due to the sale of illegal drugs by the defendants, the violation of the Act on the Control of Public Health Crimes (Manufacture of Illegal Medicines) by the defendant C, and the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, while maintaining each of the facts charged as the primary facts charged, "Violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act" in the name of the conjunctive crime, "Article 93 (1) 10, Article 61 (1) 1, and Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 30 (Defendant A and B), Article 97, Article 93 (1) 10, Article 61 (1) 10, and Article 60 subparagraph 1 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Defendant C)" in the applicable provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and the prosecutor who applied for changes the bill of indictment, which added the ancillary facts to the facts charged.