Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a doctor who opens and operates a department A in the Sung-gun of Seongbuk-do.

No medical personnel, founder of a medical institution, nor person working for a medical institution shall receive money, goods, benefits, labor, entertainment, or other economic benefits provided for the promotion of sales, such as adoption of, guidance for prescription of, etc. for drugs from a person who has obtained marketing approval of a drug

Nevertheless, around September 201, the Defendant received, as a result, cash 3.5 million won from December 201, 201 and one million won from June 201, from each of the following places: (a) around September 201, the Defendant provided the corporate cards that can be used in cash, to D members of the business of the UPPP, a corporation, and (b) upon receipt of a prescription for the pharmaceutical products manufactured and produced in the UPP, a corporation.

As a result, the Defendant received money and economic benefits provided for the purpose of sales promotion, such as adoption of and guidance for prescription of drugs manufactured and produced in the above-class drugs from the Young-gu, Inc., which obtained marketing approval of drugs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the suspect examination protocol of D to prosecution;

1. Relevant Articles 88-2 and 23-2 (1) of the Medical Service Act concerning facts constituting an offense and the proviso of Article 88-2 and Article 23-2 (1) of the same Act concerning

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 Medical Service Act;

1. The practices of rebates, which are limited to the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, of the provisional payment order, are likely to be determined depending on whether the choice of a drug would be subject to the offer of rebates rather than the treatment compliance for the patient. Since there are too much harm and injury to the nation as a whole, such as the increase in the patient's burden and the increase in the patient's health insurance finance, etc., it is necessary to impose strict liability corresponding to the act of receiving and receiving rebates.

However, the defendant is first.