All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A: The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D: The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 25 million, the additional collection of KRW 33,723,613) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

E: Error of mistake of facts and mistake of facts, the Defendant was not intended to borrow money with the intention to return money, but to acquire money as the name of rebates, and there is no relation with the receipt of money and drugs.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 25 million, the additional collection of KRW 30 million) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

G: The defendant, who is merely an individual member of the misunderstanding of facts, has not received KRW 20 million from AA (hereinafter referred to as "A"), and W, who is not the defendant, received the above KRW 20 million.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by citing the statements of BA, BG and BF without credibility as reliable evidence is erroneous.

Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence on Defendant G of unreasonable sentencing (fine 30 million won, additional collection KRW 20 million) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

On the other hand, Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is the circumstance favorable to the Defendant that Defendant A voluntarily submitted important investigation data, such as the details of the receipt of rebates, by actively cooperating with the prosecutor’s investigation while making confession of all of the instant crimes, and Defendant A does not offer rebates again, and that Defendant A did not have any criminal record of the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment.

However, the number of medical personnel, etc. who provided economic benefits, is likely to be subject to criticism in that it distorts the sound distribution system and sales order of the medicine, makes it possible for the general public who is the end consumer of the medicine to pay expenses for it, and ultimately infringe on the health rights of the people.