All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the above Defendant is an incorporated foundation E Hospital (hereinafter “E Hospital”).

A) Two times a week and 16 hours’ working as a pharmacist, and in fact, from October 201 to July 2013, 201, the Defendant was working in the E Hospital under the said contract. However, the said Defendant was merely responsible for the management of psychotropic drugs by obtaining the right of preparation of books and the thorough management of the preparation and management of books, other than the preparation of books, as he/she did not have a large number of patients in the E hospital. Therefore, the said Defendant did not lend a pharmacist’s license to the E hospital. (ii) The punishment (a fine of five million won) imposed by the lower court on the said Defendant is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (a fine of KRW 5 million) sentenced to the above Defendant is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the legislative purport of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the provisions on pharmaceutical license, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the legislative purport of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the provision on pharmaceutical license, lending of a pharmacist’s license itself with the knowledge that the drug wholesaler intended to pretend to have a pharmacist manage his/her business by using the pharmacist’s license constitutes “loan of a pharmacist’s license” prohibited under Article 6(3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5518, Dec. 7, 2006). The foregoing legal principle applies to cases where a hospital lends a pharmacist’s license with the knowledge that the hospital would prepare a pharmacist or pretend to manage his/her business by using the pharmacist’s license. (2) The court below duly adopted and investigated by the court below, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined,