In a case where Defendant A et al., an employee of a medical institution, received money provided by Defendant B et al. for the purpose of adopting and inducing the use of medical devices from Defendant B et al., and Defendant B et al. were indicted for violating the Medical Service Act and the former Medical Devices Act, the case affirming the judgment below which found Defendant B et al. not guilty on the ground that Defendant B et al. were “medical institution” to

In a case where Defendant A et al., who is an employee of a medical institution, received money from Defendant B et al. for the purpose of adopting and inducing the use of medical devices from Defendant B et al., and Defendant B et al. were indicted for violating the Medical Service Act and the former Medical Devices Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10564, Apr. 7, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply), the case affirmed the judgment below which acquitted the Defendants on the ground that Article 23-2(2) of the Medical Service Act and Article 17(2) of the former Medical Devices Act, which are applicable provisions, provide that medical personnel, medical institution founders, and employees of the medical institution, etc., receive economic benefits, etc. provided for the purpose of promoting the sale of medical devices by adopting and inducing the use of medical devices, etc., or that the above distributors, etc. received economic benefits, etc., it is difficult to interpret that provision constitutes the above provisions, and the subjects of Defendant B et al

Articles 23-2(2) and 88-2 of the Medical Service Act, Article 17(2) (see current Article 18(2)), 44-2 (see current Article 53), and 46 (see current Article 55) of the former Medical Devices Act (Amended by Act No. 10564, Apr. 7, 201);

Defendant 1 and 10 others

Prosecutor

Law Firm ELD Partners et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013No386 Decided April 2, 2013

All appeals against the remaining Defendants except Defendant 8 are dismissed. The prosecution against Defendant 8 is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to Defendant 8

According to the records, since the above defendant was recognized as deceased on June 9, 2013, which was after the public prosecutor's filing of the appeal of this case, the public prosecution against the above defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 382 and Article 328 (1) 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. As to the remaining Defendants’ grounds of appeal

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 공소외 1 주식회사(이하 ‘공소외 1 회사’라 한다), 피고인 11 주식회사(이하 ‘피고인 11 회사’라 한다)는 각 의료기기 도매상으로부터 보험상한가보다 저렴하게 의료기기를 납품받아 의료기관에 공급하는 반면, 저렴한 납품대금을 지급한 의료기관은 국민건강보험공단으로부터 보험상한가로 급여를 지급받아 의료기관과 공소외 1 회사, 피고인 11 회사가 보험상한가와 실제 납품가격의 차액을 나누는 것은 건전한 보험재정을 해하는 행위로 비난받아 마땅하다고 하면서도, ① 이 사건 공소사실에 대한 적용법조인 의료법 제23조의2 제2항 , 구 의료기기법(2011. 4. 7. 법률 제10564호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조 제2항 등은 의료인, 의료기관 개설자, 의료기관 종사자가 의료기기 판매업자 등으로부터 의료기기 채택·사용유도 등 판매촉진을 목적으로 제공되는 경제적 이익 등을 받거나, 위 판매업자 등이 이를 의료인 등에게 제공했을 경우만을 처벌하는 것으로 규정하고 있어 ‘의료기관’이 경제적 이익 등을 받은 경우에는 이 사건 조항들에 해당한다고 해석하기 어려운 점, ② 공소외 1 회사, 피고인 11 회사가 이 사건 금원을 지급한 대상은 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9(이하 ‘피고인 1 등’이라 한다)가 속한 의료기관인 ○○○병원, △△△△병원, □□병원, ◇◇병원, ☆☆☆☆병원, ▽▽▽병원, ◎◎◎◎◎병원 등인 점, ③ 피고인 1 등은 위 의료기관들의 실무담당자로 계약 체결에 관여하거나 의료기관의 수입·지출 등의 업무를 담당하기는 하였어도 그들이 공소외 1 회사나 피고인 11 회사로부터 직접적으로 경제적 이익 등을 받지는 아니한 점, ④ 피고인 10 역시 피고인 11 회사 등으로부터 직접적으로 경제적 이익 등을 받은 적이 없고, 의료기관 개설자인 공소외 2 학교법인의 실무담당자일 뿐 위 학교법인의 이 사건 금원 수수행위와 관련하여 형사상의 책임을 질 만한 지위에 있다고 보기 어려운 점 등을 이유로, 피고인 6, 7, 피고인 11 회사가 피고인 1 등과 피고인 10에게 경제적 이익 등을 제공하였음을 전제로 한 이 사건 공소사실은 범죄의 증거가 없다고 판단하였다.

Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court maintained by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on prohibition of acquisition or provision of unfair economic benefits under the Medical Service Act or the former Medical Devices Act.

3. Therefore, all appeals against the remaining Defendants except Defendant 8 are dismissed, and the prosecution against Defendant 8 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)