All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) by misunderstanding the legal principles, Defendant B did not newly adopt and prescribe the medicine of S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”) that was not previously prescribed after the commencement of the receipt of the golf products listed in No. 1 of the sight table of the pertinent crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below by Defendant B from T, and the Defendant had previously prescribed it.

Although S’s medical prescription did not have almost few changes, the Defendant’s receipt of a golf product was made for the purpose of maintaining the existing transaction, and the economic benefit prohibiting the receipt of a certain number of golf product is stipulated to be provided “for the purpose of promoting sales, such as inducing the adoption of medicines,” and thus, the Defendant’s receipt of a golf product constitutes a case where the crime does not constitute a crime under the principle of statutoryism, since it is stipulated that “the maintenance of sales, such as inducing the adoption of medicines,” the economic benefit prohibiting the receipt of a certain number of products is provided for the purpose of “the promotion of sales, such as inducing the adoption of medicines.”

(2) In fact, most of the golf products that the Defendant received as rebates from T are received prior to the implementation of the set-off system, and the value of the golf products received after the implementation of the set-off system is limited to a maximum of KRW 8.7 million, and the cash received around March 2014 is also limited to KRW 2 million. (3) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (the penalty amount of KRW 7 million, additional collection of KRW 10.5 million) is unreasonable.

B. Defendant D, E (1) did not receive any money from Defendant D and E as a pretext of rebates.

(2) The statute of limitations has expired after the lapse of five years from the date of the act, as to the portion of KRW 3 million per annum No. 1, 3.6 million per annum of the relevant crime committed in the attached Form No. 4 and E’s judgment of the court below.

(c)

Defendant

F The sentence of the lower court (the penalty of KRW 7 million, the penalty of KRW 14.69 million, the penalty of KRW 1,469,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) An economic benefit prohibiting the acceptance of paragraph (1) of Article 23-2 of the former Medical Service Act, which determines the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, is a drug.