[1] The scope of allowing mixing and selling of herb drugs by herb druggist

[2] The starting point of the statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime

[1] Article 36 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that a herb druggist shall not prepare general medicines because he/she is not a pharmacist. However, considering the unique characteristics that the risks of having special attention to public health and hygiene are less than those of other medicines and the practice on the sale of herb drugs transferred from high level, he/she grants a herb druggist a mixed sales capacity meeting the pharmaceutical pharmacist's preparation capacity under certain requirements. As such, a herb druggist may sell herb drugs by mixing them according to the prescription and prescription of herb doctor listed in the pre-explosion medical prescription at the time of request of patients as stipulated in the above provision. However, the herb druggist may not engage in herb medical acts granted to herb doctors such as medical examination and treatment beyond the scope of preparation capacity of the above drugs.

[2] The statute of limitations for an inclusive crime shall run from the time when the last crime was committed.

[1] Article 36 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act / [2] Article 252 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 77Do3156 delivered on September 26, 1978 (Gong1978, 11097) Supreme Court Decision 91Do2348 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 554) Supreme Court Decision 93Do153 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2683)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Kim-ju

Seoul High Court Decision 95No3080 delivered on April 10, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Defendant’s ground of appeal and ground of appeal No. 1 by state appointed defense counsel

The term "medical practice under Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act" refers to the act of preventing or treating a disease, and refers to the act of diagnosis, autopsy, prescription, medication, surgery, etc. as a result of experience and function based on the expertise of medical science. Here, the term "medical examination" refers to the act of diagnosis, diagnosis, prescription, medication, surgery, or surgery, etc., and the term "medical examination" refers to the act of identifying the patient's food and the name of the patient after hearing and observing the disease and determining the patient's food and the patient's life by using various scientific methods such as diagnosis, diagnosis, diagnosis, cooling, diagnosis, dust, promotion, etc. As a result, preparing, giving, or

In addition, Article 36 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that a herb druggist shall not prepare general medicines because he/she is not a pharmacist. However, considering the unique characteristics that the risks of having special attention to health and hygiene are less than those of other medicines and the practice on the sales of herb drugs transferred from the future, he/she grants a mixed sales capacity meeting the pharmaceutical's ability to prepare drugs under certain conditions. As such, a herb druggist may sell herb drugs by mixing them according to the prescription and prescription of herb doctor listed in the draft medicine at the time of the patient's request as prescribed in the above provision, however, he/she may not engage in herb medical acts granted to a herb doctor such as diagnosis and treatment beyond the scope of the capacity to prepare herb drugs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do153, Aug. 27, 1993).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts: the defendant found the symptoms against the found patients, salute them with the blood pressure gauge, retension them with the blood pressure gauge, and salute patients with the above treatment bed, and salute patients' pains, etc., and salute them by mixing them with four medical treatment medicines through blood pressure measurements, etc.; while preparing herb drugs, the prescription listed in the salute salute salute salute salute salute salute salute salute salute, and the defendant's arbitrary act of reducing or decreasing the kinds and quantities of herb drugs at his own discretion based on the patient's experience; the defendant's act of arbitrarily adding the kinds and quantities of herb drugs according to the patient's symptoms to the patient's independent diagnosis and judgment, and the defendant's act of mixing it is not allowed to a herb druggist, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence selection and judgment.

2. Ground of appeal No. 2 by a state appointed defense counsel

Since the statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime, like this case, proceeds from the completion of the last criminal act, there is no reason to argue that the statute of limitations for part of the facts charged in this case has expired.

3. Ground of appeal No. 3 by a state appointed defense counsel

If the appellate court reverses and renders a judgment of the first instance court ex officio on the grounds that the judgment of the first instance was not included in the calculation of detention days prior to the imposition of judgment, such judgment of the first instance court contains a judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant that the sentencing of the first instance court is excessive. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an error of law by omitting a judgment on the grounds of appeal, such as the theory of lawsuit

4. Conclusion

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)