[1] Whether a medicine prepared according to a doctor's prescription constitutes a medicine that is subject to the restriction and prohibition of advertisement under Article 63 (1) and (5) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (negative)

[2] In a case where the name and efficacy of a variety of cancer treatment chemicals, waste treatment chemicals, heavy wind treatment chemicals, and urology treatment chemicals are inserted on the Korean medical clinic website, the case holding that the above medicine is not manufactured for sale, but manufactured and sold for prescription by an oriental medical doctor, and thus, it does not constitute a medicine whose advertisement is restricted and prohibited under Article 63 (1) and (5) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

[1] Medicines “dispensing” for the purpose of treating or preventing a specific disease of a specific person according to the prescription by a doctor or an oriental medical doctor do not constitute “drugs” under Article 63(1) and (5) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 8365 of Apr. 11, 2007) that restrict or prohibit advertising the name, manufacturing method, efficacy, or performance of such medicine. If such medicine was advertised, it is an advertisement for medical personnel’s medical treatment, treatment, medication, not the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, but rather subject to the Medical Service Act.

[2] In a case where the name and efficacy of various cancer treatment chemicals, waste treatment chemicals, heavy winding treatment chemicals, and urine therapy chemicals are inserted on the Korean medical clinic homepage, the case holding that the above medicines are not manufactured for sale in advance and kept in the form of sugar drugs, capsulules, etc., but prepared and sold to the patient within the Korean medical clinic according to the medical treatment and treatment of herb doctors, since they are medicines prepared and sold to the patient within the Korean medical clinic, they do not constitute medicines whose advertisement is restricted or prohibited under Article 63 (1) and (5) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8365 of Apr. 11, 207)

[1] Articles 63(1) and (5) (see current Article 68(1) and (5) (see current Article 68(5)), and 76(1) (see current Article 95(1)10) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 8365 of Apr. 11, 2007) / [2] Articles 63(1) (see current Article 68(1) and (5) (see current Article 68(5)), 76(1) (see current Article 95(1)10) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 8365 of Apr. 11, 2007)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Changwon District Court Decision 2006No717 decided April 5, 2007

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 63(1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 8365 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides, “No false or exaggerated advertisement shall be made on the name, manufacturing method, efficacy, or performance of a drug, etc.” (Article 26(1) or 34(1)). Article 63(5) provides, “No advertisement shall be made on the name, manufacturing method, efficacy, or performance of a drug, etc. without obtaining permission or making a report under Article 26(1) or 34(1).”

As to the scope of “drugs”, the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act separates the manufacturing of drugs according to certain work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2329, Mar. 31, 1992; 2003Do2432, Jul. 22, 2003) and “preparation of medicine” from the scope of “dispensing drugs” under the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, “dispensing drugs for the purpose of treatment or prevention of specific diseases of a specific person pursuant to specific usage” (see, e.g., Article 2(15) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; 200Hun-Ga6, supra; 30, supra; 206, supra; 30, supra; 30, supra; 40, supra; 40, supra; 60, supra; 60, supra; 60, supra; 60, supra; 40, supra; 60, supra; 2017.

According to the facts found by the first instance court and the lower court, the "won attached to Defendant 2," written indictment of this case and the first instance court and the written judgment of the lower court, indicate the "won attached to Defendant 2," but the "won attached to Defendant 2," the representative of Defendant 1, who is not a juristic person entitled to criminal liability according to joint penal provisions, is not a juristic person entitled to be subject to criminal liability. It is evident that the above indication was caused by mistake, and therefore, it is evident that it is obvious that it was caused by mistake), in the form of personal drug information column on the homepage of the (name omitted), which carries its name and efficacy, stecium (caumcacacacacacacacin), stecacacacaca, stecacacacacacaca, stecacacacacacaca, stecacacacacacacacacacaca, etc.

Therefore, all appeals by the prosecutor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)