Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won per day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is serving as a doctor in the hospital C located in the Changwon-si, Mgu, Muwon-si B.

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.

However, the Defendant received KRW 3,00,000 from the business employees E of D, a pharmaceutical company, for the purpose of adopting and inducing prescriptions, such as “F,” from the business employees E of D (hereinafter “D”) at the Defendant’s clinic on December 2, 201, and received a total of KRW 12 times in total until January 2013, as indicated in the list of crimes in the separate sheet of crimes in the same manner.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness E’s statement in the fourth public trial protocol [1] The witness G (a witness G (a witness in charge of the C hospital business from December 2, 2010 to October 201) who is the successor of E who takes over the business of the C hospital from E was called to have the Defendant receive rebates from E at the time of handing over the business.

Also, the witness H (the person in charge of the C Hospital business from February 2013) who is another successor also testified that he would be paid rebates to the defendant from E.

The testimony corresponds to E’s statement, such as testimony, and ② E did not pay rebates at the first investigation stage.

E in relation to the statement, in an investigative agency or in this court, after the fact of receiving rebates from the investigative agency after the fact that it was too unfolded to the defendant, talking about the defendant and talking about the fact that it was a crime

the Commission.

In addition, when he made the above statement to the defendant, and later made the statement about the conversation between the defendant and the defendant when he received a telephone from the defendant, the above E's statement is natural.