Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a doctor who operated C Hospital (which is mutually changed to C convalescent Hospital) located in Chungcheong Hong-gun B from February 2, 2008 to February 14, 2012.

No medical person, founder of a medical institution, nor person working for a medical institution shall receive money, goods, benefits, labor, entertainment, or other economic benefits provided by a person who has obtained a product license under Article 31 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, or a person who has filed a product notification for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption of drugs and inducement for prescription.

Nevertheless, the defendant would pay 10 million won as a subsidy if he/she pays 30 million won when he/she has continuously purchased DNA drugs from D business employees, a corporation.

“A proposal shall be received, and shall be received, from E, on the day when it is impossible to know the police officer from October 201 to the police officer during the same month, from E in the above C Hospital’s clinic.

As a result, the Defendant received economic benefits from D for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption and inducement of drugs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor to E;

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. A copy of the list of grants, and a copy of the list of women;

1. Current status of personnel in charge of operations;

1. A copy of the details of rebates provided (C hospital);

1. Details of the use of the product of the business partner (G hospital, H Council member, C Council member);

1. Details of use of the corporate card (E);

1. Application of statutes on the details of approval by C hospital;

1. Article 88-2 of the Medical Service Act and Articles 23-2 and 23-2 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the claim is that the Defendant did not receive money in the name of illegal rebates as stated in the judgment, and even if he received money, there is no money.

Even if a public prosecution has already been instituted, the statute of limitations has already been imposed.

2. However, the evidence of the ruling.