The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal cannot be deemed to have a business relationship based on the summary order and judgment that became final and conclusive and the facts charged of this case constitute a single and continuous criminal intent. The above facts appear to constitute a substantive concurrent criminal relationship. However, the court below which rendered a judgment of acquittal of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Where multiple actions falling under the name of the same crime continue to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and the legal benefits of such damage are the same, each of these actions shall be punished as a single comprehensive crime, and where a judgment has become final and conclusive with respect to part of the crime in the relation of a single comprehensive crime, the final and conclusive judgment shall be sentenced to acquittal because res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment has not been expired with respect to the crime committed before

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1252 Decided May 11, 2006). B.

According to the records of this case, on November 5, 2012, Defendant A received a summary order of 700,000 won from the Daejeon District Court to commit a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and the summary order became final and conclusive on December 4 of the same year, and Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of 700,000 won by the same court on December 13, 2012 as a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and became final and conclusive on the 21st of the same month.

The facts constituting a violation of the above-mentioned summary order and each of the above-mentioned judgments under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act are as follows: “Defendant B is a pharmacist who has established the E pharmacy ‘E pharmacy' in Daejeon-gu, and Defendant A is employed by the above pharmacy ‘A'. A person who has established the above pharmacy or a pharmacist or herb pharmacist who works in the above pharmacy is not a pharmacy operator or a herb pharmacist who works in the above pharmacy, but Defendant A sells at the above E pharmacy 2,000 won a single summary operator who is an over-the-counter medication at around 19:06 on May 28, 2012, and at around 23:24 on June 15, 2012, 200 won an over-the-counter medication.”