The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant’s violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (excluding the portion of innocence) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary

2. With respect to the grounds of appeal as to the fraud of the defendant, even though it is not specifically specified for each act constituting part of the crime, if the whole period and completion period of the crime, method of the crime, the victim or the other party, the frequency of the crime or the total amount of damages are specified, such crime is specified (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2934, Nov. 12, 1999; 2004Do8661, Mar. 24, 2005; 2004Do8661, Mar. 24, 2005, etc.). However, even if the general statement of insurance money is inevitable in light of the nature of the prosecuted crime, it cannot be said that there is an indictment where the victim himself/herself does not directly request for the insurance money from Samsung Insurance Co. 1, 206; 204Do5041, Aug. 23, 207; 201Do108, Jan. 21, 2004).