A. Fact-misunderstanding (Defendant D and E) did not receive KRW 10,000,000 from P, which is around September 201, 201, from the company engaging in the business of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that determined the substance of the crime of existence or absence, inasmuch as each of the crimes by misapprehending the legal doctrine (Defendant A) receiving rebates is in a substantive competition relationship, and thus, as to the crime committed around March 201 by the Defendant around March 201, the acquittal should be pronounced on the ground that the statute of limitations

(c)

Sentencing (Defendant A: Defendant A: a fine of 4 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 2.5 million won, Defendant E: a fine of 7 million won) against the above Defendants are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are revealed: ① the amount received as stated in the facts charged in the instant case: (a) the amount of rebates calculated by applying a certain ratio to the prescription details received from the doctors or the settlement amount at a pharmacy by the business employees, was examined inside the company; and was specified based on the Pakistan database stored by reflecting the modified matters up to the approval of the representative director; (b) the data database for Defendant D was included in the total sales amount from August 1, 2011 to December 1, 201; and (c) it was stated that the sum of KRW 10 million was paid on or around September 1, 2011; and in fact, it was stated that the request for withdrawal of KRW 10,000,000 was submitted as evidence, based on the evidence evidence records submitted from the prosecutors’ office. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23358, Mar. 257, 2011>