When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is the intention to operate the "D Council member" in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

No medical person, founder of a medical institution, nor person working for a medical institution shall receive money, goods, benefits, labor, entertainment, or other economic benefits provided by a person who has obtained a product license under Article 31 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, or a person who has filed a product report, for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption of drugs and inducement

Nevertheless, the defendant received a proposal from E business operators F to provide economic benefits, such as cash, etc., if he prescribes a private drug.

Accordingly, around December 17, 2010, the Defendant received 6,692,00 won in cash provided from the above F for the purpose of promoting the sale of medicines and received economic benefits equivalent to KRW 19,120,500 in cash from the above date and time to February 18, 201, as stated in the attached list of crimes.

As a result, the Defendant received economic benefits from E for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption and inducement of drugs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning G and F;

1. Application of statutes referring such as a written accusation by the Fair Trade Commission;

1. Relevant provisions of the Acts and the text of Article 88-2 of the Medical Service Act and the main sentence of Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on the Selection of Criminal Crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The latter part of Article 88-2 of the Medical Service Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant is led to the crime of this case, the defendant seems to have received money without considering the explanation from the business members about the cost of survey and not clearly recognizing that the act is illegal, the amount of economic benefits received by the defendant is not much sufficient, and the defendant is in 192.