The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (such as KRW 30,000,000,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, a vice president of the F Hospital, was offered rebates equivalent to KRW 95 million from G, a company manufacturing and selling medical assistive devices, for about five years.

As such, due to such rebates practices that are limited to the medical community, there is a significant risk that the choice of medical devices may depend on whether to offer rebates rather than treatment synthetics to patients, and that there is a significant impact on the nation as a whole, such as providing factors to increase the patient's value of medical devices, and thus, the defendant who illegally received rebates needs to bear a heavy liability corresponding thereto.

However, the Defendant is an initial criminal who has no record of criminal punishment, and the Defendant has committed a crime of this case, and is in profoundly against his mistake while making a confession of this case.

The Defendant received certain amount of money in return for inducing the adoption and use of the TlsO medical device manufactured by Company G, and the above medical device seems to have limited effect on the Defendant’s acceptance of rebates on the aggravation of the health insurance finance due to non-benefit items to which the health insurance is not applicable.

The Defendant paid the full amount of the surcharge due to the instant crime.

In addition to these circumstances, in full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, various conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments and arguments, including circumstances after the crime, and there are no new circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, compared to the first instance trial, and where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In so doing, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor, it is determined that the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.