Selling Herbal Medicine by Phone Order Without Face-to-Face... Supreme Court "Violation of Pharmacist Act"

[Financial News] The Supreme Court has ruled that the act of a herbal pharmacist selling herbal medicine by phone order and delivering it by courier is a violation of the Pharmacist Act. Even when selling additional herbal medicine to the same person after a face-to-face consultation, orders and medication guidance must be conducted face-to-face.
According to the legal community on the 14th, the Supreme Court's 1st Division (Presiding Judge Shin Sook-hee) overturned the lower court's ruling that acquitted Mr. A, who was indicted for violating the Pharmacist Act, and sent the case back to the Seoul Eastern District Court.
Mr. A, after consulting Mr. B who visited his herbal pharmacy in September 2019, delivered the diet herbal medicine purchased by Mr. B via courier. Two months later, when Mr. B expressed his intention to repurchase by phone, he delivered the same herbal medicine by courier.
In response, the prosecution brought Mr. A to trial for violating the Pharmacist Act. The Pharmacist Act stipulates that 'pharmacy operators and pharmaceutical sellers must not sell pharmaceuticals outside of their pharmacy or store.'
The judgments of the first and second trials were divided. The first trial found Mr. A guilty and sentenced him to a fine of 1 million won, but the second trial overturned the judgment to not guilty.
The second trial court judged, "It is reasonable to see that the main parts of the series of actions constituting the sale of pharmaceuticals, such as ordering, preparing, delivering, and providing medication guidance, were conducted in a manner that could be considered to have been carried out within the herbal pharmacy."
They cited as grounds △the fact that the herbal medicine sold after face-to-face consultation with Mr. B and the herbal medicine sold later by phone were identical in content, composition, and price △the fact that Mr. B did not report any unusual symptoms from the previous herbal medicine intake, eliminating the need for additional face-to-face consultation.
However, the Supreme Court's judgment was different. The Supreme Court judged that the act of selling herbal medicine by phone could not be considered the same as being conducted within the herbal pharmacy.
The Supreme Court pointed out, "The herbal medicine order was not made within the herbal pharmacy but by phone," and "The series of actions such as confirming the bodily changes after taking the herbal medicine in a face-to-face state, and then ordering, preparing, and providing medication guidance according to the orderer's physical condition at that time, were not properly conducted."
They continued, "Even if the previously ordered herbal medicine and the content, ingredients, or price are all the same, it should not be viewed differently," and decided to have the case re-examined.

jisseo@fnnews.com Seo Min-ji Reporter