Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a representative of the FME in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, who is a pharmacist, and Defendant B is an employee who is not a pharmacist.

1. No person other than Defendant B’s pharmacy founders may sell or acquire drugs for the purpose of sale; and

Nevertheless, at around 14:00 on October 22, 2014, the Defendant sold 6 packages of turbling (fire extinguishing agents) 2,400 won to male customers by receiving 6 packages of turbling (fire extinguishing agents).

2. Defendant A, at the time and place above, committed the above violation against Defendant A, who is an employee of the Defendant, in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of the CDA-related Acts and subordinate statutes to the F Contracting State;

1. Article 97, Article 93 (1) 7, and Article 44 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Defendant A who selects a fine: Articles 93 (1) 7 and 44 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Articles 93 (1) 7 and 44 of the same Act; Selection of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order

1. At the time of the summary of the assertion, Defendant A, at the dispensary of the pharmacy, had the content of the conversation between the reporter and the Defendant B, and had the Defendant B clearly instructed the Defendant B to deliver the curies, which are medicine, the marketing was conducted according to the directions of the pharmacist.

2. In full view of the evidence of the judgment and the following circumstances revealed, namely, the attitude at the time of the sale of the medicine ordered by Defendant B, and the fact that Defendant A’s voice at the time did not look at all and was in a dispensary, it is difficult to deem that Defendant B sold the medicine without the explicit and specific instruction of Defendant A.

The above assertion by the Defendants is rejected.