Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 20 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a doctor who operates the “in-house Council member” in Goyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu D.

No medical person, founder of a medical institution, or person working for a medical institution shall receive money, goods, benefits, labor, entertainment, or other economic benefits provided by a person who has obtained a product license under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, or a person who has filed a product notification, for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption of drugs and inducement

Nevertheless, the Defendant received a proposal from G business members of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) to the effect that “to provide economic benefits, such as cash, by prescribing prescription drugs, such as pentlls, laves, pinine, and arche, which are produced and sold in F,” and to comply with the proposal. On December 2010, the Defendant received 760,000 won in cash from the above G from the above G at the above member’s clinic in the same manner as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes, and received a total of 38 times until June 2014.

As a result, the Defendant received cash 4,2830,000 won from F for the purpose of sales promotion, such as inducing the adoption of drugs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Attachment of a written request for withdrawal from preparation and shipment by business members;

1. Investigation Report (Attachment of Data on the Details of the SPS), investigation report (Difference in the wife details), ① consistently stated that G provided rebates to the Defendant, and specifically stated the method of the payment of rebates, etc. ② G made a statement by classifying the hospital that provided rebates and the hospital that did not receive rebates, ② G appears to have not any reason to make any false statement that G did not receive rebates from the Defendant, ③ the Defendant is a person who provided the prescribed statistics, ③ the Defendant appears to have no reason to provide the prescribed statistics, not for the acceptance of rebates, and ④ the Defendant prescribed LV from May 2010.