beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On June 15, 1999, the Defendant is a pharmacist who has opened and operates a pharmacy in Busan Young-gu D on June 15, 199, and F is an employee of the above pharmacy.
In spite of the fact that a person, other than a pharmacy founder, is unable to sell drugs or obtain drugs for the purpose of sale, F, an employee of the defendant, was requested by the above E- pharmacy to reduce the amount of drugs from a person in the name in question on May 31, 2013, and sold in KRW 2,00,00, one copy of the E- pharmacy caps caps, which were in the right display stand.
2. The purport of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act that requires only pharmacists to sell drugs is to have a significant impact on the national health, so it is inappropriate for them to leave such sales to the public’s freedom. As such, the general prohibition is generally prohibited, and the sale of drugs is permitted by cancelling a general prohibition only to pharmacists qualified through certain examinations. In light of such purport, the pharmaceutical’s legal evaluation does not prohibit even cases where a pharmacist, through implied or presumed instructions, sells assistants using mechanical or physical equipment.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1967 delivered on October 9, 1998). In light of the following, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant sold drugs using mechanical or physical means in a situation where the Defendant implicitly controls F’s act in space or situation, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged of the instant case. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s detailed review of CCTV video in this case is deemed to have been located in the pharmacy at the time of the sale of the instant medicine; (b) the kind of medicine is limited; and (c) the reduction of health and hygiene is highly likely to allow a pharmacist to sell his assistant by using mechanical or physical means; and (d) there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged of the instant case.
3. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.