All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of Defendant A(1)’s KRW 2.380,000 No. 1-2380,000, which was attached to the judgment of the court below by misapprehending the legal principles, was completed five years after the date of the act.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 7 million and an additional collection of KRW 14 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts) does not in itself receive 6,100,000 won from M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) under the pretext of rebates.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. (1) Even if the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles is made (A) even if the legal interest from damage is a single, the form of a crime is identical, and it is recognized as a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it is reasonable to view that the damage is a single crime. The statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime begins from the time when the final criminal act has been completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8069, Oct. 29, 2009, etc.). (b) However, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant’s repeated receipt of rebates, which is money provided by M business employees for the purpose of sales promotion, such as inducing the adoption of medicines in question, constitutes a single and continuous criminal act of violation of the Medical Service Act, and therefore, the statute of limitations period is not at the point of time of receipt, but at the point of time of the final crime, and it is obvious that the prosecutor has not instituted a public prosecution in this case.

(C) The lower judgment on the same issue is justifiable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is rejected.

(2) The Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing is the instant crime.