Defendant

B, D’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant C are all dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant B (compactingly unfair)’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles ) Defendant D merely established a M animal hospital in accordance with E’s proposal, and did not lend a veterinarian’s name or conspired for the sale of animal drugs.

B) Since Defendant opened a veterinary hospital, it is possible for the veterinary hospital to sell animal drugs, the sales of animal drugs can not be constituted as an independent crime in addition to the violation of the Veterinarians Act regarding the establishment of a veterinary hospital. Therefore, the dismissal of prosecution or the acquittal should be pronounced as to the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. C) Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant D of all the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, community service, and 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. (c) The Prosecutor (the lower court’s sentence on the Defendant C) is too uneasy and unfair. 2. Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”)’s judgment on Defendant B’s appeal is limited to “Defendant”.

) The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the mistake in depth, the fact that the Defendant appears not to have made any direct economic benefit in return for the Defendant’s attempt to obtain certification of antibiotics livestock products from the land farm farms, and the fact that the Defendant lent a veterinarian’s license to the veterinary hospital (I discontinued its business around December 2019, and the Defendant did not have any criminal record other than the criminal record of a fine due to the instant crime.

However, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence by taking into account all the favorable circumstances as above, and there was no special circumstance to change the sentencing of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and the crime of this case concerning the sale of animal drugs by the Defendant.