beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the parts against Defendant E, G, J, and N shall be reversed.
Defendant
E is a fine of one million won, Defendant G, or .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C1) In fact, Defendant C’s misunderstandings that Defendant C received from Q Co., Ltd.’s business employees R (hereinafter “ Q”) was merely the money received in the pro rata relationship, but not the money received as a rebates, which is the price for the prescription of Q drugs, only.
In addition, Defendant C did not receive from Q’s business employees Y the amount re-amounted to 23 times in the annexed crime list 3 times in the name of rebates.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million, additional collection of KRW 12,700,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant E’s misunderstanding of the facts reveals that Defendant E received money of less than KRW 3 million from the R of Q business operators under the pretext of meal expenses, etc. However, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, Defendant E did not receive the rebates amounting to a total of KRW 8.24 million as stated in this part of the facts charged.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 6 million, additional collection of KRW 8.240,000), which is unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
G1) In fact, Defendant G received money and valuables in the form of rebates from R of Q business operators. However, the amount is a total of KRW 5 million to KRW 10 million, which does not amount to KRW 14.68 million in total as indicated in this part of the facts charged.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million, additional collection of KRW 14680,000), which is unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.
(d)
Defendant
I) In fact, the Defendant: (a) was paid a total of KRW 500,000 from Q Q business personnel R in 2015 under the pretext of meal expenses, etc.; (b) however, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, there is no fact that the Defendant, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, received a total of KRW 4.9 million from January 201 to May 201, under the pretext of rebates.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million, additional collection of KRW 4.9 million), which is unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.
E. Defendant J 1 did not have any fact that Defendant J received money and valuables in the form of rebates from Q business operators R.
2) The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 10 million, additional collection of KRW 1.0 million, and 1.0