logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.02.09 2016고정3124
약사법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant is a pharmacist working at the C pharmacy located in Suwon-gu building B, Suwon-si.

Every pharmacist shall prepare special and general medicines according to prescriptions given by a doctor.

However, on September 29, 2016, the Defendant, at the above pharmacy, prepared the prescription drugs, which were prescribed by D’s pulmonology and doctor E to patients F, with “hynasium ( tuberculosis drugs)” without the prescription.

2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that he was prepared by F in accordance with the medical prescription brought by F, and that he was prepared by inserting “the soft” instead of “the soft LLC,” and that he did not intentionally prepare drugs without the medical prescription.

B. (1) Article 23(3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that:

(3) A doctor or dentist shall be able to prescribe special and general medicines, and a pharmacist shall prepare special and general medicines according to a prescription given by a doctor or dentist.

Provided, That in any of the following cases, he/she may dispense drugs without prescriptions given by a doctor or a dentist:

1. Where he prepares medicines in an area where no medical institution exists;

2. Where he/she prepares drugs for the purpose of disaster relief after a natural disaster renders medical institutions virtually nonexistent;

3. Where an infectious disease occurs or is likely to occur collectively;

Where the Minister of Health and Welfare recognizes and sells oral infectious disease preventive vaccination drugs;

4. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, where a doctor E prepares drugs for social service activities, the fact that the Defendant prepared the drugs to F despite the fact that the prescription issued by the doctor E is not indicated in the “contributation” is recognized.

However, it is not so.

as soon as the defendant violated the above provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

It is not possible to evaluate, and the defendant's prescription.

arrow