What's the court ruling on the claim of CSO's money?

Medical staff insisted that CSO is not a supplier

The court considered that CSOs are also drug providers based on what they gave and why.

Medical personnel who received rebates from the CSO in exchange for prescriptions of drugs pleaded not guilty in medical law, the court was found guilty.

 

Doctors insisted that the money they received could not be rebated because the CSO was not a 'medical supplier' as defined by the Medical Law, but the court found that the amount provided by the pharmaceuticals and the CRO planning to offer the rebate was also guilty.

 

The Seoul Western District Court sentenced the fines and penalties for medical doctors A and B last October.

 

A and B, the head of the hospital of X hospital, accepted a proposal from a pharmaceutical company, CSO C, who was in charge of sales agency, saying that prescription of medicines will be given a certain amount of cash and meals.

 

They were caught receiving cash of ￦4.5 million and ￦4.7 million respectively.

 

Doctor A and B pleaded not guilty because ▲ the person who gave the money was not a drug provider, and ▲the individual did not use the money received.

 

In particular, doctors A and B suggested that the amount received from the CRO cannot be rebate, and presented Article 23-2 of the Medical Act and Article 23-3 of the Medical Act.

 

Defendants said that all medical laws prohibit medical workers and others accepting money, etc.

 

from 'pharmaceutical suppliers' (according to Article 47, paragraph 2 of the pharmaceutical affairs law).

 

One argued that money did not apply to this decree.

 

It was argued that money received from a CSO sales person, not a drug supplier, does not fall under this law.

 

The issue was whether the receipt of money from a CSO sales representative would not fall under the requirements of Article 23-2 of Article 2 of Medical Law and Article 23-3 (1) of Medical Law.

 

Prosecutors in charge of the case were reportedly submitted to the Tribunal after investigating the meaning, background, role, problems, and actions of the government and related associations.

 

The court did not accept all the claims of the doctors based on all the evidence.

 

The judiciary said, “Even if the person who provided the money was not a drug supplier, it was processed in a violation of the pharmacist law, & CSOs are no problem in evaluating them as drug providers, CSOs can be evaluated as a drug provider if they can evaluate the degree of participation of CSO officials, the contents of collusion between drug companies and CSO officials, and the sharing of behaviors as joint norms”.

 

Based on the data submitted to the court, between the pharmaceutical company's employees and the CSO officials, the company planned to receive money from the pharmaceutical company in the name of agency commission and pay most of it as a rebate to medical workers.

 

This proved to be the case.

 

The Tribunal decided that CSOs can be evaluated as drug providers and CSO can be seen as a co-criminal recognizing the fact that the CSO received commissioned money in the name of the agency commission, most of it was provided to the medical workers for rebates.

 

The Tribunal also did not acknowledge that doctors claimed that the money they received from the CSO was used to run hospital wards, not individuals.

 

The court judged, “Even if there is a part of the money received and belonged to other members, it does not exclude it from the economic benefits of Doctor A and B.

 

It does not mean that the money belongs to the hospital, which is a medical institution”.

 

The judiciary's judgment is that the hospital staff is an autonomous organization run by the hospital's affiliates and doctors, and is not an official organization of the hospital.

 

In addition, it was hard to say that money was spent on the operation of the legislature due to the lack of substance and the lack of grouping, and there was no evidence that the money was distributed regularly to the members of the legislature.

 

In addition, Doctor A and B, the head of the hospital, suggested that they realistically present drug prescription guidelines and influence residents’ prescriptions.

 

The statement that the pharmaceutical offered them money also affected the ruling.

 

The court pointed out that “after the defendants were paid directly, they used it as expenses for the members of the legislature, such as event expenses, and even if they knew it, it was only a consumption method after the violation of medical law”.