A. Whether the Defendant had a criminal intent or not, the Defendant, at the advertising agency chain J (hereinafter “advertising agency”), requested the advertisement agency by presenting to 15 words constituting the advertising kid, such as “heat”, “sex type”, and “medical specialist”. The advertising agency formed 26,00 kids by combining the words presented by the Defendant, and then requested the advertisement to NAV, and among which, the advertising agency also included the key word “the chest-type medical specialist.”

However, the defendant did not think that the key word "the sex medical specialist" will be combined and requested for advertisement, and it was also impossible to confirm 26,000 key keys on a daily basis.

On the other hand, NAV has examined the keyboard requested for advertisement in accordance with the internal standards and notified the advertising client thereof if it violates the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. The Defendant also notified NAVV on the ground that 8 keyboards, including “Ap-ray high-frequency hospital,” etc. were “not related to the site’s type of business or main content.” However, the Defendant was notified of the key key of “Ap-type medical specialist” at issue in this case, and it was known that the remainder except the above eight key key keys requested by the advertising agency is not problematic (hereinafter “the lawsuit No. 1”). (b) The advertisement in this case refers to an advertisement that does not contain any false or exaggerated medical advertising or containing excessively excessive contents, and thus is likely to cause mistake or confusion to general medical consumers.

In the instant case, the advertising phrase “the sex-type medical specialist” refers to the phrase “the defendant is a medical specialist and provides medical treatment concerning the sex of chest.” The defendant obtained the qualification of a medical specialist on March 2, 2004 and then fell under the U.S. cancer, A.C.