1. Defendant A is the chief of the general department of “F” hospital B at a medical corporation located in Pyeongtaek-si E.

On the Internet homepage (G) of the above hospital in early 2008, the Defendant published a medical advertisement by inserting the patient’s treatment experience room which might mislead consumers, including “the case of “the treatment experience”, from September 29, 2008 to June 30, 2014.

2. The Defendant A, an employee of the medical corporation, committed the above violation in relation to the Defendant’s business as set forth in the above paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (the closure data on the screen of a hospital homepage);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 89 and 56 (2) 2 of the Medical Service Act;

(b) Defendant A medical corporation: Articles 91, 89, and 56 (2) 2 of the Medical Service Act;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. Suspension of sentence:

(a) Defendant A: Fines of 500,000 won;

(b) Defendant medical corporation B: Fines of 500,000 won; and

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (1) (100,000 won a day) in the workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence (the Defendants seem to have failed to have a strong perception of illegality) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act; the Defendants’ act of making a mail new, “the cases of treatment experience”, and posting patients’ treatment experience fences, etc. on the hospital’s website, is likely to mislead consumers of medical service, but the degree of the offense is not significant; the Defendants immediately corrected the offense after recognizing the violation of the Medical Service Act and encourage the Defendants to not repeat the offense in the future; and the Defendants have no same criminal power to punish the Defendants)