The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, 1 year and 6 months, and 1 year of imprisonment for Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A and D (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (three years of imprisonment for Defendant A and three years of suspended sentence for Defendant D: imprisonment for two years) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1’s violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act due to the establishment of a non-qualified pharmacy. The Defendant directly established and operated the “N pharmacy” on November 21, 2008. From February 201, 2010, Defendant A’s operation of the instant pharmacy only changes only the operating entity of the instant pharmacy, and his duties as a pharmacist, such as preparation and prescription of medicine at the instant pharmacy, have continued. As such, Defendant A, a non-qualified pharmacy, established and registered the instant pharmacy.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of a non-qualified pharmacy under Article 20 (1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

B) Since the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) was committed by the Defendant, a pharmacist, the preparation and prescription of drugs, etc. at the pharmacy of this case, there was no deception of the National Health Insurance Corporation in relation to the claim for medical care benefits, and there was no intention to commit the

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of fraud.

C) While Defendant A’s violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act due to the lending of a pharmacist’s license, Defendant A continued to work for the instant pharmacy as a pharmacist, such as preparation and prescription of medicine while working for the instant pharmacy, and Defendant A was not fully involved in the pharmaceutical’s work. Therefore, Defendant A cannot be deemed as leasing a pharmacist’s license to Defendant A, the lower court convicting Defendant A of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act due to lending of a pharmacist’s license.

(ii)..