All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on October 14, 2009, by recognizing that the Defendant: (a) on the part of the Defendant, on the part of October 14, 2009, without directly diagnosing the Defendant F, who was the husband of E, prepared a prescription on the part of the Defendant, or on the part of the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant prescription”); (b) on the ground that the Defendant’s appraisal was bad on the ground that the F was of improper relationship between E and the Defendant; (c) on the part of the Defendant, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s statement; and (d) on the part of F and E, the Defendant took advantage of the F’s medical record or was prescribed by the F.

However, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and F, the Defendant alleged to the effect that it is difficult for him to understand the fact that he prescribed in the F’s medical records and that it is difficult for him to understand the fact that the F and E are unable to use the crypheric agents due to heart diseases; and the F and E were in the form of a crypheric agents upon prescribing that they were born at another hospital around August 2010, and the F were in the form of a crypherics upon prescribing the fact that they were in the form of a crypherics at the other hospital; and ④ The instant medical prescription was prescribed in this case, and the said prescription appears to have been issued as one place, and E purchased the instant medicine from the pharmacy of M on December 18, 209 to the instant medical prescription.

In light of the fact that, although the copy of the credit card sales slip (Evidence No. 13 page of the evidence record) was submitted on December 18, 2009, according to the health insurance benefit statement (Evidence No. 54 page of the evidence record), where a drug was purchased on December 17, 2009, and where a drug was issued in the prescription of Chapter 1 in a situation where it was impossible to separately purchase a drug, it is reasonable to view that the Garex and this part of this case and others were prescribed in the prescription of Chapter 1 in a situation where the drug cannot be purchased separately. In light of the above, the above judgment of the court below erred by mistake of fact.

B. The prosecutor (the non-guilty part in the judgment of the court below) is the court below.