2. The Defendants were at the time to commit the instant crime, and most of the instant crimes were committed before the revision of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, but the practices of rebates existing in the medical community were distorted the sound distribution system and sales order of the pharmaceutical products, the final consumer of the pharmaceutical products, and the general public to pay expenses therefrom, and eventually, it is necessary to punish the Defendants in order to eliminate the practices of rebates. In this case, the number of medical personnel, etc. who provided economic benefits, and the amount of the economic benefits provided by the Defendants is very large as KRW 90 million, and the amount of the financial benefits provided by the Defendants continued to provide rebates even after the implementation of the double punishment system by the amendment of the Medical Service Act. The Defendants continued to provide rebates even after the implementation of the instant punishment system by the amendment of the Medical Service Act, the business period and size of the Defendant Company B, profits, and other Defendant A’s age, character, conduct, environment, means and consequence, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, and the Defendants’ assertion is not reasonable.

3. If so, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, Article 94-2, Article 47(2) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act before amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; and Article 97(2) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act shall be construed as “cash, etc.”; Article 3-2 of the 3-11 of the 3-2 of the 3-11 of the 4-2 of the 4-2 of the 4-2 of the 4-2 of the 4-2 of the 4-2 of the 4-2.