beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The part of Defendant A (1) misunderstanding the legal principle and the part of Defendant A No. 1 through No. 4 of the daily list of the pertinent crime in the judgment of the court below was completed by the lapse of five years from the date of the act.
(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2.5 million won, additional collection of KRW 4.740,000) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) did not receive rebates from N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment.
(2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 7 million, additional collection of KRW 12.9 million, KRW 12.9 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is reasonable to deem that even if the legal interest from damage is a single and identical act, and the form of a single crime is recognized as a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it is a single crime inclusive. The statute of limitations for a single crime runs from the time the final criminal act is completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8069, Oct. 29, 2009, etc.). However, Defendant A’s repeated acceptance of rebates, which is money provided from NN MemberO and S, for the purpose of promoting sales such as inducing the adoption of the relevant medicine, constitutes a single and continuous criminal act, and thus, it constitutes a single and continuous criminal offense of violation of the Medical Service Act. Accordingly, since the statute of limitations has run from around April 2014, which is the date of the final criminal act, the statute of limitations period is not the point of time for each criminal act, and it has not been completed from 2016 to 2016.
(3) The judgment of the court below on the same issue is just, and Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle is without merit.
B. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts