logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.01.03 2018고단1301
약사법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a pharmacist who operates a pharmacy in the name of “E pharmacy” in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si.

When a pharmacist intends to prepare alternative medicines for those which are identical in composition, content and dosage to the medicines entered in a prescription slip issued by a doctor or dentist, he/she shall obtain prior consent of the doctor or dentist who has issued the relevant prescription slip, and when he/she prepares alternative medicines for those entered in the prescription slip, he/she shall immediately notify a person who has issued the relevant prescription slip of

Nevertheless, on November 10, 2017, the Defendant, with a prescription issued by F Council's G medical doctor G, prepared the medicine of H, who was found in the above pharmacy, without the consent of the doctor G, and instead, did not notify the victim with a prescription of the preparation of alternative medicines, and instead replaced the I, a medical doctor, by J, instead of notifying the victim with a prescription.

2. In full view of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to view that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone was a substitution of I (hereinafter “instant substitute drug”) with J (hereinafter “instant substitute drug”) on the date and time indicated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Defendant

In addition, the defense counsel asserts to the effect that “no alternative preparation was made as indicated in the facts of prosecution, but, in the calculation method of “K” (hereinafter “K”), which is a prescription program, the individual unit price for the instant medicine stated in the prescription at the time, is not entered into K, and thus, it was merely entered into the alternative medicine and processed as calculated in the calculation of a similar price.”

According to the result of the appraisal of the appraiser L by this Court, the basic information of the instant medicine was first entered into the customer prescription cans of M on September 25, 2017, and the H customer's prescription was October 26, 2017.

arrow