logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.11 2018고정280
약사법위반
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The Defendants did not pay the above fines.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B From around 2007, a person engaged in the liquidation, calculation, packing, cleaning, computer and inventory management of a pharmacy as an employee of the "D Pharmacy" in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the defendant A is the representative pharmacist of the D Pharmacy.

1. No person, other than a pharmacy founder (including a pharmacist working for the relevant pharmacy), may sell drugs by Defendant B;

On July 24, 2017, the Defendant, even though there was no pharmacist’s license, changed the liver drugs from the 'D' pharmacy in Suwon-si C, Suwon-si, which was found to be a customer, and sold 126,00 won the 'Hphapp 350mg' and the 'Hphaddroid', an over-the-counter drug, as an over-the-counter drug, sold them to 126,00 won, and provided a guidance, such as the efficacy, efficacy, and dosage method

2. Defendant A violated the above provisions in relation to Defendant A’s duties at the above date, time, and place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Partial statement of witness F, and legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to CCTV CDs (recording video and voice files);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Articles 97, 93(1)7, and 44(1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Amended by Act No. 14926, Oct. 24, 2017; hereinafter “former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”); selection of fines

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

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: the Defendants’ assertion and determination of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are denied as follows: (a) Defendant B only provided a supplementary explanation under the direction and supervision of the pharmacist, and there was no sales of the drug.

At the same time, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act regulates that a person who is not a pharmacist is prohibited from opening a pharmacy (Article 20 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act), and prohibits the sale of drugs by a person who is not a pharmacy operator or a pharmacist working for the pharmacy in principle.

Article 44 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

arrow