All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

[Summary of the Reasons for Appeal] The case is an illegal rebates case. The Medical Devices Act and the Medical Service Act provide that employees of a medical institution shall not receive economic benefits, etc.

In addition, it is not clearly distinguishable from the receipt of rebates by a medical institution and the receipt of it by its employees and the receipt of it to vest in the medical institution's benefits. The Medical Service Act, etc., which provides for the subject of punishment for its employees, is to punish the cases where the benefits accrue to the medical institution through the employees of the medical institution, such as this case. The reason why the amendment of the Medical Service Act was submitted is not to impose administrative disposition on the medical institution, but to supplement the defects of the punishment for the medical institution, and the reason why the amendment of the Medical Service Act was submitted is not only to supplement the defects of the punishment for the medical institution, but also to apply the form of the act in breach of trust, and if not, the large hospital is excluded

In addition, the economic benefits received between the Defendants and co-defendants is "illegal rebates for the purpose of sales promotion" prohibited by the Medical Service Act.

Therefore, although the defendants and co-defendants' act of receiving money in this case constitutes the Medical Service Act and the Medical Devices Act, the court below held that receiving economic benefits, etc. is not the defendants D and the above co-defendants but the medical institution they belong to, and then is the employees of the medical institution or the medical device distributor.