A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

300,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The above additional collection shall be reasonable.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a medical person working in the Southern-gu E Hospital located in Gwangju-gu, who is engaged in the treatment and treatment of patients at the above hospital; F is the representative director of the G Business-General Headquarters Co., Ltd. who is the head of G Business-General Headquarters, and is engaged in the business of selling medical devices; I is a person who is engaged in the business of selling medical devices as the head of G branch office of G Co., Ltd.

On May 17, 2011, the Defendant, upon receiving F’s instructions from the above E Hospital, proposed that “If the Defendant promised to use a medical device, such as the saving of human mission handled in Company G, the Defendant would first settle the amount according to the results of the use of the medical device in the future, and would have deducted advance payments, and received KRW 300 million in return for the adoption of the medical device, such as the saving of human mission.”

As a result, the Defendant received economic benefits from a medical device distributor for the purpose of facilitating distribution, such as adoption of medical devices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of an investigation report (No. 23)

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

1. The latter part of Article 88-2 of the Medical Service Act;

1. The act of receiving money or goods from a medical device company in return for the use of a medical device under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act not only interferes with the fair competition of the market, but also increases the patient's burden by reflecting the money or goods provided by the medical device company in the price of the medical device. The crime of the crime of this case is not good in that the choice of the medical device is likely to depend on whether to offer rebates than the patient's treatment suitability or the excellence of the device. The amount received by the defendant is very significant.