Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Jury iron bars (prosecutions) and Kim Jong-young (public trial)

Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al. and four others

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 798 Decided November 29, 2016

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

(1) Legal principles

Defendant 1 did not newly adopt and prescribe the drugs of Nonindicted Co. 1 (S. Co., Ltd. 1) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) that were not previously prescribed after the commencement of receiving the golf products listed in No. 1 attached Table No. 2 in the judgment of the court below from Nonindicted Co. 2. Moreover, there was almost little change in the prescription quantity of the drugs of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) that was previously prescribed. The Defendant’s receipt of the golf products was made for the purpose of maintaining the existing transaction. The economic benefits prohibiting the receipt of the golf products by the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 13658, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same) which was applied at the time of the receipt of the golf products are provided for the purpose of “sales promotion, such as the adoption and reception of drugs,” and thus, the Defendant’s act of receiving the golf products constitutes a crime under the principle of no punishment without law.

(2) misunderstanding of facts

In most of the golf products that the defendant received as rebates from Non-Indicted 2 before the enforcement of the set-off system, the value of the golf products received after the set-off is limited to KRW 870,000,000, and the cash received around March 2014 is merely KRW 2 million.

(3) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 7 million, an additional collection of KRW 10,500,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendants 2 and 3

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 did not receive money in the name of rebates from Nonindicted Company 1.

(2) Legal principles

The statute of limitations for Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s portion of KRW 3 million No. 1 of each year of the relevant crime sight table as shown in the judgment below, and KRW 3.6 million was completed 5 years after the date of the act.

C. Defendant 4

The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 7 million, an additional collection of KRW 1,469,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

(1) Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

Article 23-2(1) of the former Medical Service Act provides that economic benefits prohibiting this number of medical services are provided for the purpose of “sales promotion, such as adoption of drugs and inducement of treatment,” and it is reasonable to interpret that “sales promotion” includes not only new medicines but also maintaining the adoption of specific medicines that have been previously established. Such interpretation accords with the legislative purpose of the Medical Service Act, and it is difficult to deem that it goes beyond the general meaning of “sales promotion”. Meanwhile, Article 23-2(1) of the Medical Service Act, amended by Act No. 13658, Dec. 29, 2015, provides that “sales promotion, such as adoption of drugs, inducement of treatment, maintenance of transaction, etc.” The addition of the phrase “sales promotion” to “sales promotion”, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that such addition to the phrase “sales promotion” is to clarify the meaning of “sales promotion”. Therefore, Defendant 1’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination of misunderstanding of facts

원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 이 사건 공소사실 기재 수수금액은 ‘공소외 1 회사에서 각 영업사원들에게 지출된 리베이트 내역’에 따른 것인데, 이는 영업사원이 요청한 리베이트 금액 등에 관한 회사 내부의 검토를 마친 후 대표이사 결재에 이르기까지의 변경사항도 모두 반영되어 저장된 공소외 1 회사 데이터베이스의 내용을 바탕으로 각 영업사원이 정리하여 작성된 것인 점, ② 당시 공소외 1 회사의 영업사원이었던 공소외 2는 경찰에서 위 리베이트 내역에 따라 피고인 1에게 2010. 10.경 188,000원 상당의 골프클럽을 법인카드로 구매하여 주었고, 2010. 11.경 300만 원, 2011. 4.경 350만 원, 2012. 1.경 200만 원, 2014. 3.경 500만 원은 모두 현금으로 주었으며, 그 외 약 100만 원 상당의 골프용품을 선물하였다고 진술하였다가, 검찰수사 이후부터 2011. 4.경 350만 원, 2012. 1.경 200만 원은 회사에 특매 조건으로 출하출금요청서를 작성하여 제출하여 회사로부터 현금을 지급받아 보관하고 있다가 2011. 5. ~ 2012. 8.경 사이에 젝시오 드라이버(가격 80만 원), 젝시오 프라임 우드(가격 70만 원), 파이즈 우드(가격 40만 원), PRGR 아이언 세트(가격 220만 원), 포틴 RM-1 웨지 2개(가격 개당 40만 원), 부시낼 레이저 거리측정기(가격 70만 원), 전문서적 1권(가격 15만 원), 골프백(가격 20만 원) 정도를 구입하여 피고인 1에게 제공하였고, 2014. 3.경 500만 원은 현금으로 주었다는 취지로 진술을 정정한바 있는데, 이는 리베이트 제공 시점과 수사기관의 조사 시점 사이에 차이가 있어 시간의 경과에 따라 기억이 어느 정도 흐려졌기 때문인 것으로 보이거나 피고인 1과의 대질로 일부 불명확한 부분에 대한 기억이 되살아나 그에 따라 진술한 것으로 볼 수 있어 이와 같이 일부 진술이 번복된 사정만으로는 공소외 2의 진술에 신빙성이 없다고 단정할 수 없는 점, ③ 공소외 2는 검찰 수사과정에서 2~3차례에 걸쳐 물품으로 제공된 리베이트 품목, 대략의 가격 및 제공시기 등을 특정하였는데, 이는 피고인 1이 수사과정에서 자신이 제공받은 품목으로 제출한 사진, 물품 관련 온라인구매내역, 동종 물품에 대한 가격검색자료, 피고인 1에 대한 리베이트물품 구입 당시 자신이 재원으로 사용하였던 리베이트용 자금 요청자료, 실제 회사로부터 집행받은 리베이트자금내역, 해당 병원에 대한 영업기간 및 자신의 영업활동내역, 공소외 1 회사 의약품 처방량 등 제반 근거자료를 토대로 나름대로 자신의 기억을 되살려 최대한 구체적으로 물품 리베이트 제공내역을 진술하였던 것으로 보이고 위 진술에 신빙성이 있는 점, ④ 공소외 2는 위 ‘공소외 1 회사에서 각 영업사원들에게 지출된 리베이트 내역’ 중 2012. 10.경 216만 원, 2013. 11.경 818,000원은 다른 영업활동으로 사용하였다고 자진해서 진술하고 있는바, 유독 나머지 리베이트 내역 부분만 피고인 1에게 지급하였다고 진술하여 의사인 피고인 1을 모해할 만한 동기를 찾기 어려운 점, ⑤ 피고인 1은 검찰 수사 당시, “2010. 10.경 공소외 2가 ‘자신의 회사 약을 더 많이 처방, 사용해 주면 리베이트를 제공하겠다’고 제안하였다. 당시는 쌍벌제 시행 이전이라 괜찮을 것 같아 리베이트를 받았다. 하지만 쌍벌제 시행 후에는 리베이트 금품을 가져오지 말라고 했지만 골프용품 등을 주어 이를 받았다”고 진술하고, 리베이트로 골프용품 등 물품을 지급받게 된 경위를 묻는 질문에 대하여는 “쌍벌제가 시행되어 제가 리베이트 금품을 안 받겠다고 하여 한동안 오지 않았는데, 이후에 골프 용품 등을 구입하여 저에게 제공한 것 같다”고 진술하여, 이미 검찰 수사 시부터 소위 의료법상 쌍벌제 시행 이전 및 이후 시점을 명확히 구별하여 리베이트 물품 수령 경위를 진술한 바 있고, 또한 피고인 1은 검찰 조사 당시 “공소외 2가 리베이트 물품으로 제공하였다고 진술한 품목을 제공받은 것이 맞지만, 골프용품 등 가격은 총합계가 약 300~400만 원 정도이다. 가격을 정확히 확인해 볼 기회를 달라”는 취지로 진술하거나 나름의 가격자료를 제출하여 주로 그 가액만을 다투었고, 2014. 3.경 현금(500만 원 중 200만 원)을 받은 사실 자체는 인정하였던 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인 1이 원심판결 범죄사실 기재와 같이 공소외 1 회사로부터 리베이트 명목으로 합계 1,050만 원 상당의 물품과 현금을 지급받은 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 따라서 피고인 1의 사실오인 주장은 이유 없다.

(3) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

It is recognized that Defendant 1’s disadvantage in the administrative disposition that Defendant 1 ought to accept due to the instant crime is not easy. However, in light of the following: (a) there is a need to strictly punish the harm of the medical health policy caused by the instant crime of receiving rebates such as the instant case; (b) the period for receiving rebates is long; and (c) the amount received exceeds KRW 10 million; and (d) other various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as Defendant 1’s age, character and behavior, environment, the process and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, Defendant 1’s allegation of unfair sentencing is groundless.

B. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

(1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts

The lower court duly admitted and examined the following circumstances: ① the amount of rebates paid from Nonindicted Company 1 to each business employee is based on “the details of rebates paid from Nonindicted Company 1”; ② the business employee’s prescription and the amount of rebates calculated by applying a certain rate of rebates to this point was organized and prepared by each business employee based on the content of Nonindicted Company 1’s database, which was entirely reflected in the changes up to the approval of the representative director; ② Nonindicted Company 2, a business employee of Nonindicted Company 1, stated that he paid money and valuables in the name of rebates to Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 as indicated in the instant facts charged, consistent with the police, the prosecution, and the lower court; ② Nonindicted Company 2, a business employee of Nonindicted Company 1, stated that he paid money and valuables in the name of rebates to Nonindicted Company 3 as indicated in the instant facts charged; ③ Nonindicted Company 2, as well as the overall statement process, did not appear to be reliable, and in particular, Nonindicted Company 3’s assertion that he/she received rebates from Nonindicted Company 2, 2, and Defendant 2’s motive and its motive for sale.

(2) Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

(A) Even if multiple money and valuables are given and received, it is reasonable to view that the legal interest of damage is a single, the form of a crime is identical, and it is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, and that the statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime is to run from the time when the last criminal act has been completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8069, Oct. 29, 2009, etc.).

(B) However, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s repeated acceptance of rebates, which is money, offered by Nonindicted Company 1’s business employees for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption and inducement of treatment of the relevant drug, constitutes a single and continuous crime of violation of the Medical Service Act inasmuch as it continued to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent. Therefore, the statute of limitations has not expired in the instant case, since the period of the statute of limitations is not at the time of each receipt, but at around June 2014 (Defendant 2) or around October 3, 2013 (Defendant 3) which is the last day of the crime, and thus, the statute of limitations has not expired in the instant case, where it is evident that the prosecutor brought a public prosecution on April 1, 2016, which was five years before the date of each final crime.

(C) The judgment of the court below on the same issue is just, and there is no reason to believe that there is no misapprehension of legal principles by Defendants 2 and 3.

C. Determination on Defendant 4’s grounds of appeal

Defendant 4’s confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, and the disadvantages of administrative disposition to be borne by the instant crime are deemed to be minor. However, there is a need to strictly punish it as the harm to the medical health policy due to the instant crime of receiving rebates, such as this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case of receiving rebates, the period for receiving rebates extends, the amount of receiving rebates exceeds KRW 14 million, and in full view of Defendant 4’s age, character and behavior, environment, the course and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too unreasonable. Thus, Defendant 4’s assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge)