의료법위반
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A Fines 7,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding (Defendant C, D, E, and F) Defendant C, D, E, and F received rebates from the business employees of Pakistan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “malking”). However, although the amount of rebates received falls short of the amount corresponding to each of the crimes listed in the list of crimes listed in the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of violating the Medical Service Act against the said Defendants on the ground of misconception of fact.
B. The sentence of the court below against the Defendants is unfair as follows: each punishment [Defendant A: fine of KRW 7 million; KRW 14.2 million; KRW 15 million; KRW 15 million; KRW 200,000; KRW 23 million; KRW 15 million; KRW 14 million; KRW 14 million; KRW 17 million; KRW 4 million; KRW 6 million; and KRW 7 million; Defendant G: KRW 10 million; KRW 6 million; Defendant G: fine of KRW 10,000; and KRW 2,280,000.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment of the Defendants on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio decision against Defendant A, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A were sentenced to each of the above two appeals cases, and this court made a decision to concurrently examine the above two appeals cases. Since each of the above judgments of the court below against Defendant A is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with each of the offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained.
B. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, D, E, F, and G (1) in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant C, D, E, and F and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, Defendant C, D, E, and F are medicined from palking as stated in the facts of the first instance judgment.