beta
Text
Defendant
C, D, E, F, G, H, I’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C (In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) The amount that the Defendant received from the Korea Labor Standards Commission, etc. [the portion 15, 17, 23, 34, 36, 43, 64, and 66] is only the price for legitimate services under the contract with the above pharmaceutical companies, and not the price for illegal solicitation regarding the prescription of drugs. 2) The price for each of the instant PPPs, etc. was deposited into a passbook in the name of the Defendant, the director general of the transfer of the Gwangju TP Hospital, and used as expenses for the whole country, as long as the Defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired or used the above money individually, it cannot be viewed as a crime of taking property in breach of trust.
B. Defendant D, H, I (Definite, misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) The amount the Defendants received from the above pharmaceutical company is merely a legitimate price for services based on lawful PPPs entered into with the above pharmaceutical company, not a price for illegal solicitation regarding pharmaceutical prescriptions. 2) Each of the instant PPPs price was deposited into the passbook in the name of Defendant D, AE medical colleges and the director general within the Gwangju TP Hospital for convenience and used as expenses for the entire country. Thus, insofar as the Defendants cannot be deemed to have acquired or used the said money individually, it cannot be viewed as a crime of embezzlement.
C. Defendant E (De facto Error, Unfair Competition) 1) The amount of money that Defendant received from Gabs Korea (ju) is merely a reasonable cost for services based on lawful PPs concluded with the above pharmaceutical company, not a cost for illegal solicitation regarding the increase of prescription of medicines. 2) The number of Nos. 12 in the lower court’s crime list (5) was remitted to the Defendant as the cost for installation in order to install an advertisement book of his company’s company in the academic conference organized by AB’s university and foreign science class, not the cost for installation in order to install an advertisement book of his company.
3. The defendant