Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of the C Council in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu and the third level.

The Defendant, around March 2013, issued KRW 45,600,000 from that time to December 2014, 200, in return for promising that the amount equivalent to 20% of the prescribed amount should be prescribed on the condition that the Defendant would receive from the above E and F in return for prescribing the drugs manufactured by the above E and F in excess of KRW 8,00,00,000 per month to E and E employees of the branch offices of the above D Co., Ltd. and F of the above company’s Dong branch offices of the above company of at least 8,00,000, as indicated in the list of crimes.

Accordingly, the Defendant received economic benefits, such as money and goods, from a drug supplier for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption of drugs, inducement of treatment, maintenance of transaction, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning E and F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect against H, I, J, K, L, M, N, orO;

1. Investigation reports (D Staff E and F’s SFA details on the C Council members), investigation reports (in addition to data classified by actual personnel of the transaction partner of the Liber enforcement partner), investigation reports (D prescription statistics and the details of budget distribution of rebates budget), investigation reports (C’s prescription and analysis of the C’s prescription details), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the main sentence of Article 88-2 and Article 23-2 (1) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 1438, Dec. 20, 2016);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order does not specify the amount of rebates for the reason of sentencing, and the practices of rebates which are limited to medical circles cause the possibility that the choice of medicines may depend on whether to offer rebates than the treatment suitability against the patient, while the increase in the patient’s weak value burden and the financial deterioration of the health insurance.