All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes due to the Manufacture and Sale of Illegal Medicines (hereinafter “Public Health Crimes Control Act”) (Article 1-B of the lower judgment’s criminal facts) (1) prescribing Y, such as J and W, etc., made by Defendant A to treat a patient who was treated by Defendant A constitutes “preparation of drugs” under Article 23(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and even if so, it is not so.

Even if the Supreme Court's judgment and the authoritative interpretation of the health and welfare department fall under the “pre-preparation”, it does not fall under the “manufacture” of medicines under Article 31 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

② Even if this part of the facts charged is acknowledged, Defendant A thought that there was no problem for a private person to prepare Y by prescribing Y after having scambling patients directly, and recognized that a preliminary preparation of Y is allowed according to Supreme Court precedents and authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

Therefore, this is a justifiable act due to work, or there is a justifiable reason to mislead the above.

B) Violation of the Health Crimes Control Act due to the acquisition and sale of illegal drugs (Article 1-3(3) of the lower judgment) (1) of the lower judgment, citing that Defendant B manufactured W without obtaining permission, Defendant A purchased and sold W from Defendant B. As such, there was no intention to acquire and sell illegal drugs to Defendant A.

(2) Even if Defendant A knew of the above facts.

In light of the rule of experience, since one private person created W, it is inevitable to recognize that it constitutes a preparation of medicines, not manufacturing of medicines.

Therefore, there is a justifiable reason for Defendant A to mislead him as above.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (the imprisonment of two years and six months, the suspended sentence of four years, the fine of 3,640,000,000) is too excessive.