All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant D (1) In the judgment of the court below, the statute of limitations for the part Nos. 1 through 3 of the annexed crime No. 4 in the judgment of the court below was completed after the lapse of five years from the date of the act.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million, additional collection of KRW 1,1450,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E did not receive KRW 5 million, which was provided for the purpose of promoting the sale of drugs, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below, from the business employees of Pakistan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “malking”).

(2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4 million, additional collection of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

G (M) Defendant G did not receive a total of KRW 9,340,000,00 provided for the purpose of promoting the sale of medicines over 24 times as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination as to Defendant D’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is reasonable to deem that even if the legal interest from damage is a single, the form of a single crime is identical, and it is recognized that the act is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent. The statute of limitations for a single crime shall run from the time the final criminal act is completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8069, Oct. 29, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, Defendant D received gift certificates in return for prescription from the Z of the Pakistan employees, around December 201, around February 201, around February 201, around March 201, KRW 500,000,000 from around March 21, 201 to around March 201, and KRW 2050,000,000 from around March 21, 201 to around February 201.