All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) Defendant I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant I”) received financial benefits from a medical device wholesaler, etc. for the purpose of promoting the sale of medical devices, etc.; (b) while the medical institution, which received benefits from the National Health Insurance Corporation as an insurance-oriented price, and paid the low price of supplied goods, divided the difference between the medical institution and the actual supply price by the medical institution and Defendant I with the insurance benefits; (c) while (d) Article 23-2(2) of the Medical Service Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts charged, of the instant case, and Article 17(2) of the former Medical Devices Act (amended by Act No. 10564, Apr. 7, 201); and (b) Article 17(2) of the former Medical Institution Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the instant facts charged, provided that it is difficult to interpret the provisions of this case where the “medical institution” received economic benefits, etc. from the medical device wholesaler, etc.; and (b) Defendant AD Hospital and its beneficiary, and its beneficiary.

Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court maintained by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination.