A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Although a person, other than a pharmacist, is unable to establish a pharmacy, the Defendant operated the above pharmacy by borrowing the pharmacist’s license from F, a pharmacist, from May 7, 2013 to July 31, 2013, while allowing the said F to work as a pharmacist for employment of the pharmacy, while paying KRW 3 million per month as the pharmacist’s license fees and benefits.

Accordingly, even though the Defendant was not a pharmacist, the Defendant established and operated a pharmacy as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The written statement of the defendant;

1. Details of account transactions with E pharmacy;

1. Investigation reports (h telephone statement hearing) and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (I telephone statement hearing);

1. Articles 93(1)2 and 20(1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Amended by Act No. 13114, Jan. 28, 2015); Articles 93(1)2 and 20(1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts; the choice of imprisonment for a prison labor

1. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The assertion that he/she intends to employ the pharmacistF, but the F will directly operate it;

Rather, the defendant was employed by the F to receive KRW 2 million per month, and accordingly, the defendant did not have established a pharmacy by borrowing a license.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not accepted, since the defendant obtained a F pharmacist’s license as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court and established a pharmacy.

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime in the prosecution, and there is no circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the confession, and rather, the Defendant’s statement on the period, background, operational form, conditions, etc. of the relevant confession is specific and consistent with the objective circumstances to be seen below, the Defendant’s statement of confession is consistent.