Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of two million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. No person other than Defendant A pharmacy founders may sell drugs; and

Nevertheless, around 13:00 on June 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) sold “F pharmacy” operated by B located in Busan Shipping Daegu E; and (b) sold the said pharmacy to the index customer who visited the said pharmacy after receiving KRW 3,000 as an over-the-counter drugs, even if the pharmacy founder was not a pharmacy founder.

2. Defendant B sold drugs at the same date, time, and place as in the preceding paragraph, even though A, an employee of the Defendant, was not a pharmacy founder, as in the preceding paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. The defendant B's partial statement

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes that contain investigative reports (Attachment of these images and images), and CDs containing violations of the F pharmacy;

1. Article 93 (1) 7 and Article 44 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Defendant A who selects a fine for a crime; Articles 97, 93 (1) 7 and 44 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Articles 97, 93 (1) 7 and 44 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Defendant B and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of Defendant B and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: (a) Defendant B and the defense counsel claimed that “Defendant B sold medicines directly at ordinary times, and ordered the employer G to sell medicines only in cases where the place is inevitable; (b) Defendant A, who was in a pharmacy, could not have been able to anticipate the arbitrary progress control despite the fact that Defendant A was an employment pharmacist, constitutes the proviso of Article 97 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; and (c) Defendant A’s act constitutes the act under the proviso of Article 44 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, merely because Defendant A’s act was merely a pharmacist’s assistant in the workplace where the employer G is a pharmacist, and thus does not constitute a selling act under Article 44 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.”

Therefore, it is recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court.