(영문) 대법원 2021.7.29. 선고 2021도6092 판결

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) shall be corrected to "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)" (Fraud).

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Part of violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

Article 20(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that "no person, other than a pharmacist or herb pharmacist, shall establish a pharmacy." This provision provides that "A person, other than a pharmacist or herb pharmacist, shall establish a pharmacy." This means that a general person who is not qualified as a pharmacist or herb pharmacist (hereinafter referred to as " pharmacist or herb pharmacist, etc.") takes the lead in strengthening and managing facilities and human resources of a pharmacy, filing reports on opening, manufacturing and selling medicines, raising necessary funds, and devolving the results of operation thereof, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7388, Nov. 13, 2008; 2008Do7388, Nov. 13, 2008). A person, other than a pharmacist, etc., is deemed to have established and operated a pharmacy that is separated from the establishment and operation of a pharmacy by a former founder, such as taking over facilities and human resources of a pharmacy already established and controlling and managing its operation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do269, Oct.

Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “establishment of pharmacy” under Article 20(

2. The remaining parts

The lower court upheld the judgment of the first instance court that convicted the Defendant of charges (excluding the part violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of

According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground of unfair sentencing. Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too

3. Conclusion

The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is obvious that the case name indication A. of the judgment of the court below clearly omitted the indication “(the name of a crime partially recognized: fraud)” and thus ex officio rectification is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating