All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. Article 4(1)1 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “narcotics Control Act”) provides that no person, other than narcotics, shall possess, possess, use, transport, manage, import, export, prepare, administer, administer, administer, deliver, sell, arrange for sale, or provide narcotics or psychotropic drugs (hereinafter “narcotics, etc.”), and Article 5(1) of the same Act provides that a person who handles narcotics, etc. shall not engage in any act prescribed in any subparagraph of Article 4(1) for any purpose other than his/her duties, and further, Article 61(1)7 of the same Act provides that a person who handles sexual drugs, in violation of Article 5(1) shall be punished.

As above, prohibiting and punishing acts prescribed under Articles 5(1) and 61(1)7 of the Narcotics Control Act on the premise that “for purposes other than business purposes” is “for purposes other than business purposes” should be determined in light of the social norms, with the mind that the legislative purpose of the above provision is to properly manage and administer the handling of narcotics, etc. and thereby to contribute to the improvement of national health by preventing health risks arising from such misuse or abuse.

The administration of narcotics, etc. within the scope necessary for the treatment of diseases or for other medical purposes based on the medical judgment of a person who is responsible for handling narcotics, etc. is allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do10797, Apr. 26, 2013). The administration of narcotics, etc. by iceing medical treatment, etc. beyond the scope ordinarily necessary for the treatment of diseases and for other medical purposes is for the purpose of “non-business purposes”.