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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the doctor to operate the C Hospital in the case of Pakistan.

No medical person shall receive money, goods, benefits, labor, entertainment, or other economic benefits provided from a drug supplier for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption of drugs, inducement of prescription, maintenance of transaction, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, around November 11, 2013, received KRW 10 million from the F in return for prescribing the drugs of D Co., Ltd., which are drugs of D Co., Ltd. at the headquarters of the above C Hospital around November 1, 2013, and received KRW 5 million from the said F in the same place as the D Co., Ltd.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as a medical person, received total of KRW 15 million for the purpose of promoting the sale of medicines from a medicine supplier.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A copy of the investigation report (a copy of the data classified by the actual person in charge of the transaction partner of a Vietnamese);

1. Classification of customers by person in charge of actual affairs and classification of customers by person in charge of actual affairs;

1. Data on the current status of budget for 21 business customers located in the Southern Branch;

1. 6 business partners’ prescriptions such as “GHADBB”

1. Report on the establishment of medical institutions (C hospital and H hospital);

1. The Defendant acknowledged the fact that he received rebates, but the amount of rebates received in cash is KRW 8 million, and the remainder of KRW 6 million was used for promoting the hospital through the “J” in accordance with the commitments between the Defendant and D, and did not receive the said money in cash, and the time and place are different from the written indictment.

However, in accordance with the above evidence, F has consistently stated that the Defendant’s rebates was drawn down and the date and place of the service and the amount was determined.