Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 16, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for six months of imprisonment by violating the Labor Standards Act at the Incheon District Court on February 16, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 24, 2017.

A medical person, founder of a medical institution, or a person working for a medical institution shall not 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, an importer of drugs, or a drug wholesaler for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption

The Defendant is a doctor who is a founder of the Cvalescent Hospital in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon. On October 2015, the Defendant determined that the Defendant would receive rebates on the condition that he met the D Staff E, a wholesale company of medicines, at the center of the Cvalescent Hospital, and continuously receives medicines from D, and that the amount of rebates would be calculated by calculating the amount equivalent to 15 to 20% of the settlement amount of medicines between one month as one year in advance. On November 1 of the same year, the Defendant received cash KRW 10,000,000 from the above E at the center of the Cvalvalescent Hospital, and received cash KRW 10,00,000 from the above E at the same place on November 9 of the same year.

As a result, the Defendant received KRW 20,000,000,000 from D, in aggregate of the economic benefits provided for the purpose of sales promotion, such as inducing the adoption and reception of medicines.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Photographs of account details;

1. Previous convictions: Regarding admissibility of the police suspect interrogation protocol against E of the Supreme Court case inquiry and the list of evidence of judgment No. 40, the defendant violated the Medical Service Act, E of the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and both are in violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, but both are in a pro rata accomplice relationship based on the same factual relationship with which economic benefits, such as money and valuables, were received for the purpose of sales promotion, such as inducing the adoption of drugs, etc.