Defendant 1 and one other

Beneficiary and Beneficiary

Law Firm Chungcheong, et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by fine for negligence of KRW 2,500,000 and by fine of KRW 3,000,000, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 50,000 per day into one day.

An order to pay an amount equivalent to each of the above fines shall be issued.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

Defendant 2 was a pharmacist who runs a pharmacy in the name of “○ pharmacy” on the third floor of the building in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter address omitted) from November 22, 2002, and Defendant 1 was a pharmacist who opened a private hospital on the same floor as “○○ pharmacy,” and Defendant 1 was a medical specialist who opened the private hospital in the name of “△△△” on the same floor as from November 11 of that year.

Defendant 1, etc., on the ground that there are many cases in which the Defendants sought to obtain a prescription identical or similar to the previous prescription without face-to-face medical treatment for reasons of time, location, remote distance, etc., Defendant 1, etc., at least once before Defendant 1 visited the above hospital and provided medical treatment at least once prior to the date, and entered the following prescriptions by telephone, and sent the prescription to the “○○ pharmacy” of Defendant 2. Defendant 2, who received the prescription, requested the patient to transfer the sum of expenses incurred in the above hospital’s prescription and drug preparation to the national bank account under the name of the above hospital, and requested the patient to transfer the sum of expenses incurred in the above Internet account to the patient, and then, if it is confirmed that the sum of expenses incurred in the above Internet account was deposited in the above account, Defendant 1, etc., sent the prescription to the above hospital by way of mutual communication and delivery of the prescription and delivery of the prescription to the patient under the condition that the patient wishes to receive the prescription and delivery of the drug separately from the above hospital.

No pharmacy founder shall engage in collusion in offering money, goods, benefits, labor, entertainment and other economic benefits in return for medical prescriptions arranged by a medical institution founder.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired with Non-Indicted 1 (a disposition of suspending indictment on the same day) who is an employee of the above ○ Contracting State, and Defendant 1 issued a prescription to the patient Non-Indicted 2 on January 4, 2006 to the above “○○ Contracting State” through Non-Indicted 3, etc., who is a nurse, and Defendant 2 prepared a “moring” under the above prescription, and sold to the above patient by preparing the “moring” called the “moring” drug, etc. according to the above prescription. The above Defendant 3, etc. confirmed the prescription that the expenses were paid by the patient and received KRW 13,000 on the face of the expenses from Defendant 2, and received KRW 13,000 on July 26, 2007, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (1) from that to that to July 26, 2007, provided Defendant 1, a medical institution founder, a medical institution founder, with labor benefits of 14,101,010 won and week.

2. Defendant 1

No person, other than a doctor directly engaged in the medical service, shall prepare a prescription and deliver it to the patient.

On January 4, 2006, the Defendant, at the above hospital, did not directly examine the patient non-indicted 2, prepared a prescription in its name, and issued the prescription to the above "○○ pharmacy" as delegated by the patient, and prepared a prescription without directly examining the patient over a total of 672 times as shown in the attached list of crimes (2) between May 18, 2007 and the patient.

1. The statement made by the defendant 2 in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 15, and Nonindicted 3 in the fourth trial record

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 12 and Nonindicted 6 in the fifth trial record

1. The statement made by Nonindicted 14 in the sixth trial record

1. An interrogation protocol of Defendant 2 by the prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 15, and Nonindicted 16 (including each substitute part of Defendant 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 15)

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 5

1. A written statement of Defendant 2

1. A criminal investigation report (the patient record book that has not been treated at a hospital);

1. Investigation report (a copy of a prescription for keeping the pharmacy);

1. Each investigation report (a copy of passbook with two pharmacists, and details of transactions);

1. A criminal investigation report (a copy of medical examination and treatment records of patients in books);

1. Investigation report (patients entered in the book);

1. Investigation report (specific suspect);

1. Each investigation report (to search for persons who redeem books for reference);

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1: Article 94(1)2 and Article 24(2)2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 89 and 17(1) of the Medical Service Act [Article 68 and 18(1) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 8366 of Apr. 11, 2007) concerning part of the facts charged]

Defendant 2: Article 94(1)2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 24(2)2 of the same Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-ho

1) As seen in the part concerning Defendant 1’s violation of the Medical Service Act, Article 17(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that, as seen in the part concerning Defendant 1’s violation of the charges, no doctor or doctor who directly conducted a medical examination shall prepare a prescription and deliver it to the patient. As such, in this case, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 received all the amount delivered to Defendant 1 for the cost of issuing a prescription issued without a direct medical examination upon Defendant 2’s request from the patient and received it as compensation for the relevant prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 200

2) Article 24(2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides for the duty of prohibiting the act of collusion between a pharmacy founder and a medical institution founder. In light of the content and purport (referring to the act of collusion) of the above provision, it is reasonable to interpret that if a pharmacy founder and a medical institution founder commit an act falling under any of the five types of collusions, both a pharmacy founder and a medical institution founder may be punished on the basis of the same provision (see, e.g., Daejeon District Court Decision 2001Da3509, supra).