logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.06.07 2016고단2065
약사법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On July 25, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the D pharmacy located in Yeongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant: (b) changed “A 0.25 g of Albomi” as indicated in the prescription issued by the doctor F of the National Assembly to “A 0.25 g of Albomi” without the consent of the doctor; (c) “A 10 g of Albomi”.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the argument is that, while preparing a drug in accordance with the prescription made by G according to the G, the Defendant, instead of “0.25 m. at Albom” as “10mg at Albomi”, was mistakenly prepared, not intentionally changed to “a 10mg at Albomi” without the consent of the Defendant.

B. (1) Article 26(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that:

(1) No pharmacist or herb pharmacist shall dispense drugs by modifying or revising prescriptions without the consent of a doctor, dentist, herb doctor, or veterinarian who has issued a prescription.

2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the medical doctor F written the prescription issued by the doctor F with G as “0.25mg at Aligh,” it is recognized that the Defendant saw the above medicine as “stroke 10mm at stroke.”

However, Article 26 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that a person who commits an intentional crime shall not be punished for a violation of the above provision, since Article 26 (1) of the same Act is a provision that punishs a person who commits an intentional crime, the defendant may be punished for a violation of the above provision, and where the defendant prepares a drug by modifying or modifying the drug in a prescription

In full view of the evidence adopted and examined by this Court and the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in this case alone was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant had such intention.

Rather, it is insufficient to see that the defendant did not pay sufficient attention in the process of preparing a medicine according to the prescription of the defendant.

arrow