The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each of the punishments (eight months of imprisonment) of the original judgment is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the facts that the Defendants were led to confession in the trial, that the Defendants were living in custody for two months, that the Defendants did not have any record of being subject to the punishment heavier than the fine, that Defendant B was aged 70 years old, and all other matters concerning the sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, the lower judgment’s respective punishment is deemed unfair, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is reasonable.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is delivered following the pleadings.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 93(1)2 and 20(1) (a) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Articles 93(1)7 and 44(1) (a) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (a point of establishment of a non-pharmaceutical’s pharmacy); and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

B. Defendant B: Articles 93(1)1 and 6(3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; the choice of imprisonment

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for a suspended sentence;

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;