Nevertheless, the court below which rejected the credibility P's statement and acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was receiving KRW 24 million from P as the name of rebates, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① P’s statement is the only direct evidence of the facts charged in the instant case.

However, it is difficult to trust the P’s statement in light of the following: (a) there is sufficient possibility that P would have taken rebates in the middle; (b) the Defendant’s active demand for rebates to P orO; (c) the circumstance in which the payment of rebates was urged is not revealed; (d) the rebates paid to the Defendant is considerably exceeding the amount calculated according to the standards for calculating rebates as stated by P; and (e) there is no consistency in P’s statement on the standards for calculating rebates; and (e) the Defendant’s statement on the timing of offering rebates for the Defendant

(2) The standard table for the payment of rebates is prepared by theO regardless of whether it is actually paid rebates; the current status of the payment of rebates by individual hospital is limited to the sales prescribed by the method of the above payment criteria, and the current status of the offering of rebates by individual hospital is limited to the sales calculated by comparison with the above payment criteria; and it is difficult to recognize any particular probative value as to the facts

(3) The fact that the defendant has issued to theO statistics stating the results of Z prescription shall be paid rebates.