2013Gohap1423 A. Violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

B. Violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

1.(a) A

2.(b) B Stock Company

3.2. C.

4.2.D

In case of the Nadong-dong (Court of Justice) and Kim Jong-Hun (Court of Justice)

E Law Firm

Attorney F in charge (for defendant A and corporation B)

Law Firm G.

Attorney H in charge (for defendant C)

Attorney I (for defendant D)

March 20, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months, by a fine of 20,000,000 won, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of eight months.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years for Defendant A, and for Defendant C and D for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant B shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine to Defendant B.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant A is a person who works as the head of the marketing headquarters of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) from January 2008 to March 2013; from April 2013 to December 2013, Defendant A works as the head of the headquarters of B’s headquarters; from April 2013 to December 2013, Defendant A is a person in charge of marketing and overall business related to the sales of drugs; budget detailed allocation and enforcement; Defendant B is a corporation with the purpose of manufacturing and selling medicines; Defendant B is a corporation with 120 drugs, chemical drugs, non-pharmaceutical drugs; and Defendant C is a representative director of Korea Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “P”) who is a market research company from November 25, 2009 to December 13, 2013; Defendant D is a person who has been engaged in the clinical development of drugs from January 13, 2013 to March 20.

1. Defendant A

A. Violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

No business operator (including executives, employees, agents, and other persons who perform an act for the benefit of a business operator) shall engage in any act that is likely to impede fair trade (hereinafter referred to as "unfair trade practices"), such as unfairly inducing or coercing customers of competitors to trade with himself/herself.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in collusion with the officers and employees of Section B (State), C, and D, provided economic benefits to customers' hospitals, clinics, etc. in return for the prescription, adoption, purchase, etc. of drugs handled in Section B (States).

On January 209, the Defendant provided 1,132 medical personnel, etc., including 1,256,164,069 won in total, to 891 medical personnel, etc., including 1,132 medical personnel, etc., for the purpose of promoting sales, such as adoption, prescription inducement, etc. of medicines, such as Q, which is a prescription drug, from August 2008 to May 201, 201, for the purpose of promoting the adoption, prescription inducement, etc. of medicines manufactured and sold by B, including 3,256,164,069 won in cash, merchandise coupons, goods, etc., from around August 2008 to May 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant committed unfair trade practices in collusion with the executive officers and employees of B(State), C, and D, which induce customers of competitors to deal with oneself.

(b) Violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act;

A person who has obtained marketing approval of drugs shall not provide money, goods, benefits, labor, entertainment, or other economic benefits to pharmacists, herb pharmacists, medical persons, founders of medical institutions, or persons working for medical institutions for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption of and inducement for drugs.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in collusion with the officers and employees of B(ju), C, and D, had a mind to provide economic benefits for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption and prescription inducement of drugs handled in B(ju).

On January 209, the Defendant provided 1,132 medical personnel, etc., including 3,256,164,069 won in total, to 891 medical personnel, etc., including 1,132 medical personnel, etc., including 3,256,164,069 won in cash, merchandise coupons, goods, etc., from August 2008 to May 2013, for the purpose of promoting sales, such as adoption of medicines, prescription inducement, etc., including Q, as indicated in the separate crime list (1).

Accordingly, the Defendant provided economic benefits to medical personnel, etc. for the purpose of promoting sales, such as adoption of drugs and inducement of prescription, in collusion with executive officers, employees, C, and D of B (State).

2. Defendant B corporation

The defendant is a company that manufactures and sells drugs after obtaining marketing approval, and the defendant's employer, as described in paragraph (1) above, committed unfair trade practices that unfairly induce competitors to deal with the defendant's business, and provided financial benefits to medical personnel, etc. for the purpose of promoting sales, such as inducing the adoption of drugs.

3. Defendant C.

In July 2009, the provision of rebates, which is an economic interest such as money, for the purpose of promotion of sale, was introduced as a means to reduce drug cost. On November 28, 2010, the revised Medical Service Act introduced the so-called so-called 'balsing system for illegal rebates of drugs', which punishs medical personnel, etc. who received economic benefits such as money provided for the purpose of promotion of sale, such as inducement of prescription, etc., by introducing the so-called 'balsing system for illegal rebates of drugs', which makes it difficult for them to directly provide money and valuables like transfer to doctors, etc. who prescribed the medicines manufactured and sold in B, and the employees of B(State) sought another way to provide illegal rebates of drugs for the

On October 2010, the defendant made a proposal that the Korean Pharmaceutical Association can provide economic benefits through the method of paying the price to the medical personnel who responded to the investigation while carrying out the "market research permitted by the Fair Trade Code of Drug Transactions", which is the autonomous code of pharmaceutical companies implemented with the approval of the Fair Trade Commission, which is implemented by the Korean Pharmaceutical Association.

The "market survey" is an activity conducted by pharmaceutical companies, etc. to collect information on consumers' needs and on the scale and characteristics of markets, so as to ensure fairness in the survey, the market research institutions under the Fair Competition Regulations shall not independently select health and medical professionals subject to the survey and disclose them to health and medical professionals subject to the survey, and only within the limit of 100,000 won per health and medical expert to provide them with an adequate level of response within the limit of 10,000 won per health and medical expert.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received data from the said R, stating the name, affiliated hospital, contact address, electronic mail address, etc. of the doctor subject to a request for market research prepared by the employees of B (State) for the purpose of promoting the sale of S, T, U,V, etc. and maintaining their prescriptions, and conspired with A, R, etc., who are executive officers and employees of B, to pay KRW 60,000 or KRW 100,000 per case through K for market research and to pay KRW 60,000 per case under the pretext of the case of market research fees.

On January 14, 201, the Defendant entered into a contract with B (ju) in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for market research service (a separate contract for service charge of KRW 40,00,000, value added tax), entered into with B (ju) office in August 1, 201, with B (a separate contract for market research service (a service charge of KRW 150,000,000, value added tax), and received from B (ju) office in February 1, 2012, with B (a separate contract for market research service (a service charge of KRW 30,00,000, value added tax of KRW 30,000,000, value added tax), and received from B (State) in the aggregate of KRW 268,975,705, from November 16, 2010 to August 21, 2012.

From November 8, 2010 to August 14, 2012, the Defendant conducted a market survey as requested by B (State) and conducted a market survey on the intent of customers Byung and members of B (State) with the data containing the names of the affiliated hospitals, contact numbers, electronic mail addresses, etc., and planned 286,300 won as above for the purpose of prescribing, maintaining, and facilitating the sale of medicines manufactured and sold in Section B (State) as stated in the attached Table of Crimes (2), and planned the market survey on January 27, 201 to provide 286,30 won under the name of the market survey on the market survey entrusted to Y hospitals located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and on January 27, 2011.

As a result, the Defendant in collusion with the officers and employees of B(State) provided a total of 159,321,780 won to medical personnel for the purpose of promoting the sale of medicines.

4. Defendant D

In July 2009, the provision of rebates, which is an economic interest such as money, for the purpose of promotion of sale, was introduced as a means to reduce drug cost. On November 28, 2010, the revised Medical Service Act introduced the so-called so-called 'balsing system for illegal rebates of drugs', which punishs medical personnel, etc. who received economic benefits such as money provided for the purpose of promotion of sale, such as inducement of prescription, etc. of drugs, and thus makes it difficult for them to directly provide money and valuables like transfer to doctors, etc. who prescribed the medicines manufactured and sold in B, as in the case of the introduction of the so-called 'baling system for illegal rebates of drugs', which is to promote the sale of drugs.

The Defendant, who is a drug manufactured and sold in B(State) by his employees, received materials on the list of intents to request translation from B(States) for the purpose of promoting the sale of T and U, and on the account number, etc. in the accounts used by each doctor, and conspired B(States) with R(States) and employees, who are executive officers and employees, to pay the amount presented in B(States) through L(States) without actually requesting the translation of the paper against the intents indicated in the above list.

On October 12, 2010, the Defendant entered into an entrustment contract (a total of KRW 120,000,000, value-added tax separately) with B (ju) office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for translation and development of forestry papers (a total of KRW 120,00,000, value-added tax) and received from B (ju) for expenses incurred in translation and preparation of clinical papers.

On November 5, 2010, the Defendant provided KRW 300,000,00 to the 133 doctors in total for the purpose of prescription, maintenance, and sales promotion of pharmaceutical products manufactured and sold in Section B as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (3) during the period from that time to April 28, 201, under the name of translation fee for the translation of the thesis that was formally requested to AC by the doctors of the members of the AB in Section AB in accordance with the list of the customers in Section B (State) and the account and amount of money received from the said R, and provided KRW 94,40,000 in total to the 133 doctors in total for the purpose of prescription, maintenance, and sales promotion as described in the attached Table of Crimes (3).

As a result, the Defendant in collusion with the officers and employees of B(State) provided a total of 94,400,000 won to medical personnel for the purpose of promoting the sale of medicines.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, C, and D;

1. AD, AE, P, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AK, AmM, AO, AP, Q, AR, AS, AS, ATS, AU, AW, AX, AY, AY, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BF, BH, BH, BJ, BK, BY, BL, BY, BY, BP, BP, BP, BP, B, B, B, B, B, B, CA, CB,CC, CD, CD, CF, CF, CG, CI, and Justice;

1. CL, R, CN, CN, CNA, Q, CTR, CTR, CCR, CU, CV, CY, CZ, CZ, CZ, CZ, DB, DD, DD, DF, DD, DG, DH, DH, DH, DI, DJ, DK, DM, DDDD, DP, DDR, DP, DSS, DSS, DSS, DSS, DSS, DTR, DTR, DTR, DTR, DU, DD, DU, DD, DD, DY, EB, EF, EPE, EMF, EMF, EMF, EMF, EMF, ETC, EMF, EMF, EMF, and parts of the DJ, DY, EPE, EPE, EMF, EMF, EMF, EMF, EMF, EMF, EMF, EMF, EMF, EMF, EMF, EM, EMF, EM, EMF, EM, ES, ES, ES, ES, EM.

1. FE, F,F, FG, FI, FJ, FJ, FJ, FK, FK, FM, FN, FN, FO, FP, F Qu, FR, FTS, FTS, FU, FV, FW, FW, FX, FY, FY, GG, GB, GJ, GJ, GF, GF, GG, GJ, GJ, GJ, GL, and GM respective statements;

1. Market research plans, copies of each market research service contract, copies of each market research service contract, each corporation card sales company (including each card and chain store), the current status of use of rebates for each company's card sales company (including each card and chain store), each business day table, the details of the receipt of rebates, the details of the receipt of rebates, the translation advisory statement, the details of the operation of the translation program, the information on the registration of file of an entrustment contract for the thesis, the translation of each clinical thesis and the consignment contract, each deposit, the details of each clinical paper, the copy of each deposit, the copy of the data on On-board Mvey PT, the copies of the translation, the details of each deposit account;

1. Each report on investigation;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A

1) The point of offering economic benefits that ends on or before November 27, 2010: Each Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Articles 67 subparag. 2 and 23(1)3 of the same Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in all cases, referring to unfair inducements, imprisonment with labor as a whole by a recipient), Articles 95(1)8 and 47 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 10324, May 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 62(1)5 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, No. 27, Dec. 13, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of economic benefits, inclusive, the provision of economic benefits, and the selection of imprisonment with labor as a whole by a recipient)

2) The point of offering economic benefits that ends on or after November 28, 2010: Each Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Article 67 Subparag. 2 and Article 23(1)3 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in the case of an unfair inducement, including the case of an unfair inducement, a person subject to the provision of an imprisonment), Articles 94-2 and 47(2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of economic benefits, including the fact of offering economic benefits, the provision of a person subject to imprisonment

B. Defendant B corporation

1) The point of offering economic benefits that ends on or before January 1, 2010: Each of Articles 70, 67 subparag. 2, and 23(1)3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (unfair inducements, including the point of unfair inducements, and each provider), Articles 97(1), 95(1)8, and 47 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 62(1)5 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (the provision of economic benefits, including the point of offering economic benefits, and each provider)

2) The point of offering economic benefits that ends on or after November 28, 2010: Articles 70, 67 subparag. 2, and 23(1)3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as “unfair inducement”), Articles 97, 94-2, and 47(2) of each Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (including the point of offering economic benefits, including the point of offering economic benefits, and each provider)

(c) Defendant C: Each of Articles 94-2 and 47(2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in the case of imprisonment with labor, referring to each provider);

D. Defendant D

1) The provision of economic benefits that ends on or before November 27, 2010: Article 95(1)8 and Article 47 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Article 62(1)5 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

2) The point of offering economic benefits that ends on or after November 28, 2010: Each Pharmaceutical Affairs Act Article 94-2 and 47(2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in all cases, choice of imprisonment with labor as a whole for each provider)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A, C, and D: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant B: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

(a) Defendant A, C, or D: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years;

(b) Defendant B corporation: Fine of not more than 25 million won;

2. Although the declaration-making practices of the pharmaceutical industry distort the sound distribution system and sales order of the pharmaceutical, the costs incurred therefrom may be transferred to the general public, which is the end consumer of the pharmaceutical, and the medical law has been amended and thus the legal system of rebates has been enforced, Defendant A attempted to provide rebates to doctors, pharmacists, etc. continuously through a secret and unlawful method as an executive officer or employee of the pharmaceutical company, Defendant C and D have cooperation with this. Defendant B had the record of imposing a penalty of KRW 714 million from the Fair Trade Commission by the same type of unfair customer inducement act around 2007; Defendant B had a record of imposing a penalty of KRW 70 million from the Fair Trade Commission on the same type of unfair customer inducement act; the period and frequency of offering rebates to the Defendants in light of the amount of illegal rebates; and there is a high possibility of criticism.

However, the defendants recognized the crime of this case and are against the law, again, that they would not offer rebates, Defendant C and D did not have any criminal record more than a suspended sentence in the case of Defendant A, and Defendant C and D were the primary offenders, and the size of rebates offered in this case, the motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, including the punishment as ordered, shall be determined in full view of the following circumstances.

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges Yang Sung-tae

Judges Shin Young-ju