All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 8 of the Court Organization Act provides that "Any decision made by a higher court in a trial shall bind the lower court with respect to the case in question," and the latter part of Article 436 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that any factual and legal decision made by the court of final appeal on the ground of reversal shall bind the lower court.

Although the Criminal Procedure Act does not have any express provision corresponding thereto, in light of the purport of the above legal provision, the ground for existence of the tier system, and the fact-finding by the Supreme Court, which can intervene in the propriety of the judgment of the court below on fact-finding, it should be deemed that the actual judgment, which served as the reason for reversal of the judgment of the

Therefore, the court remanded a criminal case from the court of final appeal is bound by the factual and legal judgment presented by the court of final appeal as the reason for reversal in the trial of the case, unless there is any change in the evidence relationship, which serves as the basis for the binding judgment after presenting new evidence during the deliberation process after remand (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10572, Apr. 9, 2009). The court below held that Defendant A was not guilty of violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act due to the manufacture and sale of non-reported quasi-drugs among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that Defendant A manufactured non-pharmaceutical drugs. The court below reversed the judgment of the court of final appeal and acquitted the Defendants.

The Prosecutor appealed against this and appealed by the Prosecutor. According to the evidence duly adopted by the lower court prior to remand, the second instance court is likely to mislead Defendant B as a manufacturer or lose the identity of the original product and make it a separate product from the ordinary public. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the Defendants’ re-Packing act as an act of manufacturing quasi-drugs. Thus, the lower court’s judgment prior to remanding the case as otherwise determined.