beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The defendant does not pay the above fine.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not applicable to the Defendant following the lapse of the lawful grounds for appeal, namely, ① the duty of care and supervision over employees, and ② the founder of the pharmacy of this case submitted the grounds for appeal claiming a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant, who was a pharmacist, is not subject to Article 44(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.
2. Prior to examining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio determination, the health care room ex officio, and the lower court applied Article 97, Article 93(1)7, and Article 44(1) of the current Pharmaceutical Affairs Act to the criminal facts of the instant case.
However, Article 93(1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 13114, Jan. 18, 2015; Article 1 of the Addenda to the amended Act (amended by Act No. 1314) provides that a statutory penalty shall be imposed on “a imprisonment with labor for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 50 million won,” and Article 93(1) of the Addenda to the amended Act provides that “Article 93(1) shall enter into force on the date of promulgation.” Since the Defendant’s crime was committed on December 6, 2013, the lower court committed a crime on the ground that the Defendant was punished by applying the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which was the time of the act, unless a minor change is made in connection with the foregoing provision. However, the lower court committed a violation of the new Act
In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
3. First of all, the judgment on the grounds of appeal No. 1 is examined, the defendant asserted the same purport from the court below to the same effect, and the court below presented its reasoning not to accept it. In light of the records of this case, the court below's fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified.
Next, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the argument No. B in the grounds of appeal, the defendant was in fact a pharmacy at the time of the instant case.