We reverse the judgment of the court below.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and the defendant B shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A did not have received rebates from G. Defendant A.

B. Defendant B (1) did not receive rebates from G. Defendant B

2) The punishment of the court below No. 2 against Defendant B (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Defendant A’s violation of the Medical Service Act ex officio on June 6, 2011 is deemed to have been ex officio.

Defendant

A’s prescription of prosecution of violation of the Medical Service Act is five years (the statute of limitations is five years pursuant to Article 249(1)5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the statutory penalty is imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won). The prosecution against this case constitutes a case where the statute of limitations is completed as it is obvious in the record that the prosecution was instituted on September 30, 201, five years after the above day, and the statute of limitations is completed, and it is obvious that the prosecution was completed on September 30, 2016, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The judgment of the court below convicts the Defendant of this case is a violation of the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant

A’s violation of the Medical Service Act on June 201 and violation of the Police Officers’ Medical Service Act on November 201, 201, there is an interval of time between about one year and four months, and it is difficult to view it as the relation of a single comprehensive crime.

3. Defendant A’s violation of the Medical Service Act and Defendant B’s violation of the Medical Service Act among November 201, 2012, and Defendant B’s violation of the Medical Service Act. As the second sentence of the first sentence of Article 1(2) of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment in the lower judgment, “the first sentence of the same month” refers to the first sentence of June 2012, and “the first sentence of the same month” refers to the lower judgment on June 2012, and “the first sentence of the same month” refers to the lower judgment on June 2012.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① a business employee of the United Kingdom Restriction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ United Kingdom Restriction”)

G consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the amount of KRW 1 million to Defendant A during November 2012, and the sum of KRW 3 million to Defendant B on June 1, 2012.