logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.12.18 2015노1802
약사법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that Defendant B sold drugs according to the direction of Defendant A, a pharmacist, and did not sell drugs independently, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2. Article 20(1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 13114, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter “Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”) provides that no pharmacist or herb doctor may establish a pharmacy, and Article 44(1) of the same Act provides that no person, other than a pharmacy founder, may sell drugs. The purport of such provision of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is to ensure that the sale of drugs is likely to affect the national health, and that the sale of drugs is inappropriate for the public health and sanitation to take charge of the sale of drugs, and thus, to allow the sale of drugs by cancelling the general prohibition only to a pharmacist qualified through a certain test.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1967 delivered on October 9, 1998). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the health care unit in this case and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, Defendant B, who is not a pharmacist, can sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant B sold medicines to customers without the direction of Defendant A.

(1) Where assistant workers sell drugs in danger of national health and sanitation due to side effects, etc. in light of the purport of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, whether a pharmacist’s instruction exists shall be determined strictly.

② Prior to Defendant A, a pharmacist at the lower court’s attendance, the Defendants led Defendant B to commit the instant crime while holding specific arguments that Defendant B had sold “beero system,” which is a fire extinguishing agent, and there is a circumstance to suspect the voluntariness or credibility of the said confession.

arrow