Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a pharmacist who opens and operates a “C pharmacy” on the first floor of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building.

A pharmacy founder, etc. shall not sell drugs, the effective period or use period of which expires, or store or display them for the purpose of sale.

Nevertheless, on January 12, 2013, the Defendant sold 6 pononomon pattern, which is a medicine for the improvement of respiratory donation, until September 5, 2012, the term of validity to D, a customer, at the above pharmacy.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The defendant's certificate;

1. The head of Yangcheon-gu Public Health Center;

1. A written accusation of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of pharmacist license;

1. Article 95(1)8 and Article 47(1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 11421, Act No. 11690), the Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 165), Article 62(1)8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 165) concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that, in the process of arranging the newly supplied products, some of the old products whose term of validity has expired entered the same as the actual ones, were sold, and the Defendant did not have any intention since he did not recognize all such circumstances.

However, according to the statement of the letter of confirmation prepared by the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant thought that the previous products will be sufficiently raised before the expiration of the term of validity at the time of the combination of drugs, and that the previous products were combined into the new products stuff, and at the time, the previous products of the existing waterway changed to his/her parent.

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted, since it is difficult to view that the defendant could not be seen as having known that the term of validity of the old product can be expired.