Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won, and a fine of 500,000 won, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is a pharmacist who operates a pharmacy in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon, and the defendant A is a person who is engaged in pharmaceutical management, display, etc. at the above pharmacy.

1. No person, other than Defendant A pharmacy founders, shall sell or acquire drugs for the purpose of sale;

Nevertheless, on May 15, 2015, Defendant A sold gallon M (4) to customers in the above E pharmacy at KRW 2,800.

2. Defendant B, at the same date and time as stated in paragraph 1, and at the same place, Defendant B, an employee of the above Defendant, committed an act in violation of the law as stated in paragraph 1 in relation to the sales of his pharmaceutical products.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A statement that is written by the F;

1. Evidential materials, etc. (five times a year);

1. Application of the video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 93(1)7 and Article 44(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; the selection of fines;

B. Defendant B: Articles 97, 93(1)7, and 44(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; selection of fines

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the assertion by the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that Defendant A sold Hegel M in accordance with the explicit instructions, such as Defendant B’s snow, finger, etc. in a dispensary located immediately after the sales stand at the time of the instant case.

If there was no explicit instruction of Defendant B, it would be limited to the case where a pharmacist considers it necessary in the case of over-the-counter drugs, and Defendant B did not provide a taking map because he did not feel the need to intervene in the sales process in a situation where he was aware of the sale of over-the-counter drugs designated and requested by Defendant A in a preparation room.