Defendant

Manctains

Attorney Lee Jong-ju (Korean)

The defendant is innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant was a person working for non-indicted 1 corporation in business affairs; (b) the Defendant was unable to receive retirement allowances and business activities allowances after retirement from the above company; and (c) the fact at the office (title omitted) office located in Jyang-dong, Seoul, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of undermining the mother of the above company; (d) on March 2006, the Defendant sold drugs to a person who is unable to handle drugs; or (e) sold drugs to a person who is unable to handle drugs five times from March 1, 2004 to June 2005 without permission; and (e) around January 2005, the Defendant manufactured and sold any c belt money without permission to the ○○○○ pharmacy located in the former North Korean father-gu; and (e) made and sold a false statement to the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration that caused the use of this part of drugs without proof of drug equivalence in a pharmacy by sending it to the Korea Food and Drug Administration.

2. Determination

A. Points of selling medicines to unqualified persons

(1) First, the police interrogation protocol (six pages of the investigation record) and the written statement of the accused (21 pages of the investigation record) against the accused are denied by the accused in this court, and all of them are inadmissible.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the court below held that Non-Indicted 2 purchased drugs from the non-Indicted 2, the non-Indicted 2's purchase of the drugs, and Non-Indicted 2's purchase of the drugs to Non-Indicted 2, the possibility that Non-Indicted 2 purchased the drugs can not be ruled out in light of the fact that Non-Indicted 2 purchased the drugs. ② Non-Indicted 3, a non-Indicted 1 corporation's management director, was present as a witness in this court and sold the drugs to Non-Indicted 2; ③ Even if there was any content different from the facts on the Non-Indicted 2's sales ledger, Non-Indicted 2 was hard to recognize that the contents on the above sales ledger were false, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that Non-Indicted 4's false statement on the non-Indicted 4's criminal record among Non-Indicted 7 testimonys, Non-Indicted 4's false statement on the witness's qualification, non-Indicted 4's false statement on the suspect's identity, or evidence to acknowledge the above facts.

(b) The point of manufacture and sale of Belgiums;

(1) According to Non-Indicted 4’s statement in the 7th trial record, Non-Indicted 4’s statement, Non-Indicted 3, and Non-Indicted 5’s statement in the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, and Non-Indicted 4’s statement in the public official statement against the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant filed a petition with the same content is recognized even though the Non-Indicted 1 did not have made and sold the Belgium around January 2005 when the Belgium was manufactured and sold.

In addition, as to whether the defendant had the awareness of the falsity, first, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant and the written statement of the defendant (the 6th page of the investigation record) against the defendant (the 21st page of the investigation record) denies the contents of the defendant in this court, all of them are inadmissible, and the sale ledger (the 14th page of the investigation record) contains a statement that the 1,000 soldiers of the 10 Belgium were supplied to 220,000 won at the ○○○ pharmacy (the 14th page of the investigation record) on January 12, 2005, and there is a high possibility that the defendant who submitted the written complaint based on the above sales ledger is believed to be a fact recorded in the above sales ledger. In light of various circumstances, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the 4th written statement of the witness, Nonindicted 5’s written statement of the witness, Nonindicted 4’s statement in the police interrogation protocol of the defendant, and Nonindicted 4’s statement in the public official statement of the public official.

C. The point of sale of double protrudings

(1) Article 11 of the Petition Act provides, “No person shall make a petition stating false facts for the purpose of undermining another person.” Although some of the petition contents contain contents contrary to objective truth, if it is merely an exaggeration of the circumstances of the petition, or it is related to the contents that are not directly affected by the existence of a false fact in view of the overall existence of a crime, it is reasonable to deem that the crime of violation of the Petition Act is not established.

D. According to the records, it is recognized that Nonindicted Co. 1 sold dual protrudings without proof of drug equivalence and without insurance to a pharmacy. Thus, even if the Defendant was somewhat exaggerated in the circumstance of the fact that the Defendant promoted the use of it as an illegal alternative preparation, etc. at a pharmacy based on these facts, the petition’s content on the sale of double protrudings cannot be deemed false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

Judges Kim Jong-soo