The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In violation of Article 17(1) of the Medical Service Act, the Defendant merely prepares a medicine according to a prescription prepared by E, who is a doctor, and did not have the intent to assist the patient by preparing a prescription without a doctor’s direct treatment and issuing it to the patient.

B. Although the court below did not recognize the identity of basic factual relations, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the modification of indictment and permission to change the criminal facts in violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act to the criminal facts in violation of the Medical Service Act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is a person who establishes and operates a pharmacy with the trade name of “D pharmacy” in “B” in “B” in “B” in “B” in “B” in Haju-si. Around June 30, 209, the Defendant: (a) at “D pharmacy” operated by the Defendant in Haju-si; (b) even though the patient H was under a direct medical examination by “D”, the patient H was contacted with the above G Council; (c) under the prescription, the Defendant issued a false prescription as if the above E diagnosis was conducted; and (d) made the said h’s prescription possible for 30 days using the prescription; (c) made the above h’s compact, disc, and shot method possible for the said H; and (d) made the above 10-day prescription easily issued by the said method at the above site; and (c) made the 10-day prescription to be issued; and (d) made the said 1-day prescription to the patients under the Medical Service Act.