beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A merely obtained the consent of Defendant B or other working pharmacist L, or delivered medicines under implied or presumed instructions, and did not have sold medicines in an exclusive manner.
If so, a pharmacist should be deemed to have sold medicines in substance. The complainant intentionally lacks probative value, and the witness L and M’s testimony that Defendant B had been in his pharmacy at the time is sufficiently reliable.
B. In consideration of the various circumstances of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (one million won by each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants’ assertion is 1) the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 13114, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter “Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”).
Article 20(1) of the 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 is to sell drugs, so that the sale of drugs is likely to affect the national health, and thus, it is inappropriate for the public to leave the sale of the drugs to the public’s freedom, and thus, generally prohibiting the sale of drugs by cancelling a general prohibition only for qualified pharmacists through a certain test (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do1967, Oct. 9, 198). Considering the legislative intent of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, the sale of general over-the-counter drugs that are in danger of public health due to side effects, etc. should be deemed that a pharmacist’s explicit or specific instruction may not be directly sold.2) The foregoing provision of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is re-issued to the instant case, and the evidence duly adopted by the court below, in particular, witness F (name) witness), witness, and each statement at the court below.