The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant constitutes “a person who intends to import drugs, etc. (hereinafter “importer”)” under Article 42(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

Even if the defendant is not an importer, no one can advertise drugs, etc. without permission or reporting to the Food and Drug Safety Agency.

Even so, the lower court rendered a judgment of innocence against the Defendant by misunderstanding facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination 1) The lower court rendered a judgment of innocence against the Defendant on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

2) Article 95(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that a person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding ten million won. Article 95(1) of the same Act provides that “A person who violates Article 60, 64(1) or 68” is 10.

Article 68 (5) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that no advertisement shall be made on the name, manufacturing method, efficacy, or performance of drugs, etc. without obtaining permission or making a report pursuant to Article 31 (2) and (3) or Article 42 (1). Article 31 (2) and (3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that no advertisement shall be made on the name, manufacturing method, efficacy, or performance of drugs, etc.

The interpretation of punishment laws and regulations should be strict, and it is not permissible to expand or analogically interpret the meaning of the provision of life penalty to the disadvantage of the defendant because it violates the principle of statutoryism in the crime.

Therefore, Article 68 (5) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is subject to regulation only for the manufacturers of medicines, the operators of entrustment and sale business, and the importers under the prestigious provisions.

must be viewed.

Therefore, the issue is whether the defendant who operates the Internet shopping mall site falls under "an importer" under Article 42 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and should have obtained permission or reported on the drug.