The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The defendants are the defendants.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court (as to Defendant A), the court below sentenced Defendant A not guilty on the violation of the Medical Service Act among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A, and pronounced guilty on the remainder of the facts charged. Since only the Defendant A appealed on the conviction part of the judgment of the court below and the part of acquittal was not appealed by the prosecutor, the scope of the judgment of this court against Defendant A is limited to the above guilty part

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendants’ joint criminal administration part of the Defendants’ joint criminal administration part alone is not sufficient to acknowledge the Defendants’ act of making the Defendants make a prior promise or making the Defendants prepare only at a specific pharmacy because of the sign or code on the prescription. In the case where the prescription and the preparation of medicine are different, it is nothing more than the Defendant’s mistake or mistake. 2) The employees of the hospital operated by the Defendant A in violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act of the Defendant A did not induce the Defendant to prepare probba, or send text messages by specifying the F pharmacy before the patient requests, and it is nothing more than sending text messages at the request of H, a patient.

B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the trial. In other words, Defendant B stated that, in the investigation agency and the lower court’s judgment, in a case where the prescription first arrived at the pharmacy and the Defendant A changed the call to change the prescription inevitably, he/she should prepare a prescription by issuing a prescription, despite the fact that he/she was required to prepare a prescription, he/she did not put the prescription in accordance with the Defendant A’s instruction.