Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

From April 2004, the Defendant is a doctor who opened and operates the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2 and the third floor of the building B in Geumcheon-gu.

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 permission for items of a drug for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption of and guidance for prescription of a drug.

Nevertheless, around the end of July 201 to August 8, 201, the Defendant received a prescription request for drugs manufactured and produced in C, such as “E,” from D, a business employee of the C, and received five million won in cash in return for such request.

As a result, the Defendant received money from the (State)C, which is provided for the purpose of promoting sales, such as adoption and inducement of drugs manufactured and produced in the above C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement to the effect that the witness D provided the defendant with the money as stated in the judgment in this Court

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to D;

1. The investigation report (related to the data attached to the suspect D) (the defendant and his defense counsel are disputing the credibility of the witness D's statement.

However, D consistently provided the Defendant at the A Periodical and the next resting room in the clinic of a member's clinic under the pretext of rebates in the investigative agency and this court, and consistently provided the Defendant with a gold of five million won.

The credibility of statements is recognized in a concrete and consistent manner.

However, in the police and prosecutorial investigation process, the statement was made around July 201 or around August 8, 201, and the statement was reversed in this court as of March 201 or around April, 201. However, according to C’s “unable trading line,” which is a document related to rebates, the former table’s date is written as of June 20, 201, and the beginning date is written as of July 1, 201, it is entirely inconsistent with the above statement in the court, and in particular D.