A doctor who illegally profited about $940,000 by selling and administering etomidate, an anesthetic often referred to as a second propofol, for sleep purposes, has received a final prison sentence from South Korea’s Supreme Court.
According to legal sources on Friday, the Supreme Court’s Third Division, presided over by Justice Noh Kyung Pil, upheld a lower court ruling sentencing the doctor, identified only as Doctor A, to four years in prison and a fine of about $7,500. The doctor was convicted of violating the Special Act on the Control of Public Health Crimes, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and the Medical Service Act. The court also ordered the confiscation of about $739,000.
Doctor A, who operates an internal medicine clinic in Seoul’s affluent Gangnam district, was indicted for providing sleep rooms and administering etomidate to patients seeking treatment for addiction to propofol and similar substances.
Etomidate is an anesthetic that induces a loss of consciousness, creating a sleep-like state. It is a prescription drug and is not approved for the treatment of sleep disorders.
Investigators said Doctor A conspired with nursing assistants, offering incentives to administer the drug to patients.
Through this scheme, from 2019 to 2024, Doctor A administered or sold etomidate 5,071 times to 75 patients, generating total revenue of approximately $941,000.
Additional charges included conspiring to carry out unlicensed medical practices by having nursing assistants directly administer the drug and failing to document those treatments in medical records properly.
In the initial trial, Doctor A was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to six years in prison and a fine of about $7,500. The court also ordered the full confiscation of proceeds from etomidate sales, totaling about $941,000.
However, the appeals court excluded some evidence obtained from closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage and related testimony, ruling that it had been collected unlawfully. Based on the remaining evidence, the court recognized approximately $739,000 in criminal proceeds and criticized investigators for searching unrelated electronic data during the seizure.
As a result, the appeals court reduced the sentence to four years in prison, maintained a $7,500 fine, and ordered the confiscation of about $739,000.
The Supreme Court upheld the appeals court’s decision, finding no errors in the application of legal principles, including the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence, evidentiary standards, pharmaceutical sales under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and unlicensed medical practices under the Medical Service Act. The court dismissed both the defendant’s and the prosecutors’ appeals.