Whether the cleaning amount of contact lensess constitutes a medicine under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

The cleaning amount of contact sirens is not only the pharmacological impact of the snow by directly contact with each other, but also the pharmaceutical products prescribed by the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act because they are used to prevent diseases.

Article 2 (4) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Branch of Seoul District Court Decision 92Gohap499 delivered on February 12, 1993

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is not the medicine prescribed in Article 2 (4) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, unlike the biochemical salt that the defendant manufactured and sold, but the above washing amount is not explicitly stipulated in the Korean Pharmacopoeia. It is clear that the impact on snow is much more than the above washing amount, and the washing amount used to remove the short-term washing of contact lenses (which seems to mean the removal of the short-term washing quality) is not treated as a medicine, so the court below erred in law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the above washing amount was recognized as a medicine. The second point is that even if the above washing amount was medicines, the defendant did not know the fact that the above washing amount was the medicine, and even if so, the public official did not know the fact that the above washing amount was the medicine at the time of the above washing, the public official did not know about the manufacturing and sale of the above washing amount, and there is no reason that the above washing amount was not necessary for the defendant's sale of the fixed-term washing article 9.

Therefore, according to Article 2 (4) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, the first point of appeal by a defense counsel is that ① sanitary articles are listed in the Korean Pharmacopoeia, ② equipment used for the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, treatment or prevention of diseases of human beings or animals and ③ equipment (excluding cosmetics) is used for the purpose of exerting pharmacological effect on the structure and functions of human beings or animals and is not machinery and appliances (excluding cosmetics). According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is possible for the defendant to wear a siren containing dyeculium, clumium (E.D.A.) and dyeculic caleculine contained in the Korean Pharmacopoeia, and thus, they are manufactured by mixing them with dyeculic calculine contained in the Korean Pharmacopoeia, and then, they can not be found to have any gyeculic calum contained in the aftermathic calum contained in the Korean Pharmacopoeia, and then, they can not be found to have any gyeculic flum solution contained in each part of the bar.

Next, according to the records, the summary of the reasons for appeal is as follows: the Ministry of Health and Welfare asked questions as to whether the washing amount constitutes a medicine from around 1984, 1985 to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Department, etc.; on October 11, 1985, the Ministry sent a reply that the washing amount constitutes a medicine under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, since it continued to constitute a medicine under the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; thus, in fact, the company of the above mid-to long-term medication and the non-indicted Korean medicine corporation obtained permission to manufacture contact lenses washing amount; on around 1985, the pharmaceutical business is in practical charge in the pharmaceutical business within the pharmaceutical business of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs; on the ground that the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the washing amount was not a medicine due to such reasons as alleged, even if it was erroneous that the manufacturing and sale of the washing amount was not a crime under the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes, the above assertion is groundless.

Finally, the court below's sentencing is deemed appropriate in light of the following factors: the third point of the grounds for appeal and the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor; the case and result of the instant crime shown in the records; the circumstances after the crime; the defendant's age, age, age, academic background; criminal records; and character and conduct, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, since all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, they are all dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Tae-hwan (Presiding Justice)