At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was Leaked, and was undertaking training courses in accordance with the direction and supervision of internal organs and professors or former professors.

In the process of adopting and prescribing drugs, the Defendant was not in the position of exercising the right to choose any pharmaceutical company's drugs or whether to maintain or expand transactions with any pharmaceutical company, and was not in the position of making such choice.

Although the defendant's profit received is not the price for the adoption of medicines, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

Punishment ( fine of three million won) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

The defense counsel's opinion submitted on July 14, 2020, after the deadline for submission of the appellate brief, shall be determined only to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal stated in the appellate brief.

Judgment

The defendant in the judgment of the court below also argued the same as the reasons for appeal, and the court below rejected the above argument by stating in detail the judgment on the defendant's argument under the title "the judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's argument".

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the ground that no new data to be considered in the health room and the trial have been submitted.

The records and arguments of this case are revealed.