Around March 10, 2011, the Defendant advertised the patient’s treatment experience in the surgery, such as inserting surgery equipment, which was written by the patient G from August 22, 2010 to March 10, 201, in the column of the main screen of the said hospital’s website (F), and inserting surgery equipment, which was written by the patient G from around August 22, 201 to around March 10, 201, to the patient from around September 19, 201 to around March 10, 201.

2. As one of the medical advertisements prohibited under Article 56(2)2 of the Medical Service Act, “an advertisement with any content that is likely to mislead consumers by guaranteeing the effect of treatment, etc.,” and Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act, which delegates specific standards, etc. for medical advertisements prohibited under the subparagraphs of Article 56(5), further specify prohibited acts under each subparagraph of Article 56(2), and one of them is “the expression that the specific medical institution or medical person’s function or method of treatment has an essential effect in treating a disease, or the advertisement with the patient’s experience or clinical career for not more than six months.”

The facts charged are medical advertisements prohibited by Article 56 (2) of the Medical Service Act, where the defendant posted the patient's post-the-job equipment to the patient's post-the-job column on the hospital Internet homepage, and the following circumstances revealed by the records are as follows. In other words, in order to read the post-the-job equipment on the hospital Internet homepage, it is operated in a limited form only after joining the committee as a member, and the contents of the post-the-job equipment stated in the facts charged are as follows.