Defendants are not guilty.

1. Defendant A is a pharmacy founder that operates the “E pharmacy” in the Cheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and Defendant B is a medical institution founder that operates the “G hospital” in F.

A pharmacy founder and a medical institution founder shall not engage in collusion in which a pharmacy founder provides money, goods, benefits, labor, entertainment and other economic benefits in return for medical prescriptions arranged by a medical institution founder.

Defendant

B around April 3, 2008, at the above “G Hospital,” the patient H was treated by telephone, issued a prescription, and then the nurse issued a prescription to the Defendant A. Defendant A sent an employee whose name is unknown to the said G Hospital, paid KRW 10,000 for the prescription fee of KRW 71,090 to the said “E pharmacy,” and received a prescription, and then the said “E pharmacy” prepared a medicine equivalent to KRW 71,090 in accordance with the prescription, and sent the said medicine to H via taxi or on-line.

Defendant

A received 85,000 won, including 10,000 won for the above prescription, 4,000 won for taxi or home delivery, from H, to the Agricultural Cooperative Deposit Account in its own name.

The Defendants, including that, from around that time to March 8, 201, committed the act of collusion in which both the Defendants provided convenience in return for the solicitation of prescriptions by the aforementioned means 37 times.

2. Defendants and defense counsel’ assertion and determination

A. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that Defendant A did not provide economic benefits in return for the medical prescription arrangement, and the Defendants did not have committed any collusion between them, and they did not have any act of collusion.

B. The protocol of interrogation prepared by a judicial police officer against Defendant A of the facts of recognition is denied by the defense counsel of the defendant at this court (the first court date) and thus, it cannot be admitted as evidence as evidence because it has no admissibility. Meanwhile, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence shown in the records of this case.