[1] Interpretation of Article 41 (1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act that limits the place of selling medicines

[2] The case holding that where a pharmacist, at a place other than a pharmacy, sells drugs at a place outside the pharmacy, and then constitutes a violation of Article 41 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, in case where the pharmacist consulted about the drug by telephone with the client for remote area and the client for door-to-door delivery

[1] Article 41 (1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 8035 of Oct. 4, 2006) which provides for the sale of drugs provides that "A pharmacy founder shall not sell drugs at a place other than a pharmacy or store" shall be interpreted to the effect that all or part of a series of acts constituting the sale of drugs, such as the order, preparation, delivery, and taking of medication, should be performed within a pharmacy or store, or in such a way as to be seen equally.

[2] The case holding that where a pharmacist consulted a client for remote area and telephone call about a drug and then sent the drug to a client, since the major part of the drug sales was conducted at a place beyond the temporary limit of a pharmacy, it constitutes an act of selling the drug at a place other than a pharmacy in violation of Article 41 (1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 8035 of Oct. 4, 2006)

[1] Article 41 (1) (see current Article 50 (1)) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 8035 of Oct. 4, 2006) / [2] Article 41 (1) (see current Article 50 (1)) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 8035 of Oct. 4, 2006)

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2007No4428 Decided April 11, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The provisions of Article 41 (1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 8035 of Oct. 4, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) stating that “A pharmacy founder shall not sell drugs at a place other than a pharmacy or a shop,” in light of the legislative purport of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, or that a pharmacist or a herb pharmacist shall not engage in the business of establishing a pharmacy or preparing drugs. A person who intends to establish a pharmacy shall prepare facilities necessary for the criteria prescribed by the Presidential Decree and make a registration of establishment under the conditions as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and in principle, a person who intends to establish a pharmacy shall install the pharmacy with the facilities required for the standards prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and in light of the provisions of the relevant provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act that have the essential contents that he/she is able to sell drugs while managing the pharmacy only.”

After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the sales of drugs was conducted at a place beyond the location limit of the Defendant’s pharmacy, on the following grounds: (a) the Nonindicted Party consulted on the drug by telephone without visiting a pharmacy opened by the Defendant; and (b) remitted the proceeds to a financial account managed by the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant received drugs from the Nonindicted Party on his home by sending them to the financial account managed by the Defendant; and (d) such form of sales was conducted at a place beyond the Defendant’

In light of the above legal principles and records, although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, it is just in its conclusion. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on selling at pharmacies

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)