Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

A pharmacist who has obtained a pharmacist's license from the Minister of Health and Welfare shall not lend his/her license to another person.

However, from October 2, 2013 to February 4, 2014, the Defendant lent a pharmacist’s license to the E pharmacy located in Chungcheongnam-gun Hongsung-gun, under the condition that the Defendant would receive KRW 3 million per month, and to the pharmacistF in bad credit standing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G, F, and H;

1. Each written provision of financial transaction information;

1. A pharmacy operation contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a real estate lease agreement (248 pages of investigation records);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 93 (1) 1 and 6 (3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The assertion;

A. Since F is a pharmacist, it does not constitute “a case where he lends his license to another person”.

(b) not lend the F license to the F, but intended to engage in F and East business;

2. Determination

A. In full view of the legislative intent of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the provisions on pharmaceutical license, it is reasonable to interpret that the term “loan of license” prohibited by Article 6(3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act refers to the lending of license itself with the knowledge that another person is a pharmacist in the name of his/her license, while driving as if he/she is a pharmacist in the name of his/her license.

The loan is a case where the borrower is not only a disqualified person, but also a qualified pharmacist, if the borrower is a pharmacy, etc. established under the name of the borrower after the loan, and the borrower is to operate the pharmacy directly without carrying out his/her duties as the pharmacist (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6829, Jun. 24, 2003).