The judgment below

Among them, the part of additional collection against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A 650,000 won shall be additionally collected.

The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendants to each punishment (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, fine of 20 million won, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year, fine of 30 million won, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The crime of violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is not against the nature of the crime in terms of the fact that the Defendants, other than pharmacy founders, sold fake, etc., which is a fake medicine, and that there is a high possibility of having a serious adverse effect on national health, and the quantity of medicine acquired by the Defendants for the purpose of sale is reasonable.

They have a history of criminal punishment for various crimes, such as punishment of imprisonment, and the same kind of crime of violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act has already been punished.

In particular, Defendant A has a record of having been sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of drug crime.

In the first instance, there is no special circumstance in which the Defendants may be different from the original judgment against the Defendants.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s respective punishment against the Defendants cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

ex officio determination, the lower court, ex officio, 650,000 won [the part smoking by Defendant A in the 2g mari-mari-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa

(a) through (c);

Paragraph (6g) and 3.91g of marijuana held by Defendant A on October 12, 2015 were confiscated by the police, and 2.91g among them was confiscated by the lower court. Since the remainder of 1g was consumed in the appraisal test, the value of the above 3.91g is not to be collected separately, the additional collection of 7.50,00 won was made against Defendant A among the lower court’s additional collection of 7.5 billion won.