A. Defendant (De facto misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) misunderstanding of facts as to the meaning of the act of introduction, good offices and inducement, and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant’s Internet web site operated D (hereinafter “instant web site”).

In principle, the act of advertising or discounting products is not subject to Article 27(3) of the Medical Service Act. In light of the amendment history, legislative purport, and Supreme Court precedents, the act prohibited pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Medical Service Act refers to an act that is identical or equivalent to “an act of exempting or discounting personal charges, offering money, goods, etc., or providing transportation to many and unspecified persons, etc.,” and the act that is prohibited pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Medical Service Act should be deemed to mean an act that is identical or equivalent to that of “an act of offering transportation, etc.,” and (3) as the instant web site was operated in a random manner, it is difficult to deem that the instant web site introduced, arranged, or induced patients as “specific hospital,” and (4) the Defendant’s request for advertising or discount sale of the instant web site is not likely to undermine the order of the medical market because it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s act of providing the instant online web site as an agent or intermediary service, or that it does not constitute an act of inducing the Defendant to conclude or delegate service.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the meaning of the act of introduction, intermediation, and inducement.