[1] The purport of Articles 16 (1) and 35 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

[2] The case holding that since assistant's sales of a link drug under a pharmacist's implied or presumed instruction, it is reasonable to evaluate that a pharmacist actually sold it

[1] Article 16 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that no person, other than a pharmacist or an oriental medical doctor, shall establish a pharmacy, and Article 35 (1) of the same Act provides that no person, other than a pharmacy founder, may sell drugs. The purport of the above provision of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is to ensure that the sale of drugs is likely to affect the national health, and that the sale of drugs is inappropriate for the public health and sanitation to leave the sale of drugs to the public’s free will, and thus, to allow the sale of drugs by cancelling a general

[2] The case holding that it is reasonable to evaluate that assistant's sales of a link drug under a pharmacist's implied or presumed instruction and actually sold by a pharmacist

Articles 16(1) and 35(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 97No2009 delivered on May 29, 1998

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 16 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that no pharmacist or herb doctor may establish a pharmacy, and Article 35 (1) of the same Act provides that no person, other than a pharmacy founder, shall sell drugs. The purport of the above provision of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is to ensure that the sale of drugs is likely to affect the national health, and that the sale of drugs is inappropriate for the public health and sanitation to leave the sale of drugs to the national freedom, and thus, to allow the sale of drugs by cancelling a general prohibition only to a pharmacist qualified through a certain test.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts: (a) under the evidence adopted by the defendant 2 as follows: (b) it is extremely high time for customers to order to designate a specific dial link on the pharmacy; (c) it cannot be deemed that there is a risk of public health and sanitation due to the use of the dials because side effects of the dial link on the use of the dials were almost reported to medical circles and medical circles; (d) as a pharmacist at the time of the instant case, the above pharmacy is not a pharmacist, and (e) the non-indicted 2, a pharmacist employed by the above pharmacy, and three customers were not a pharmacist, and (e) the defendant 2, a pharmacist, was within the pharmacy that did not appear in the location of the dials, and (e) the above pharmacist, a pharmacist, provided that there was no evidence of law as to the sale of the dials by the defendant 1, who was not a justifiable pharmacist's assistant to the defendant 2, as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)