The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 56 (3) of the Medical Service Act shall not run any medical corporation, medical institution, or medical person with false or exaggerated content medical advertisement;

“......”

The term “medical advertisement” refers to a medical corporation, medical institution, or medical person’s act of widely informing medical technology and medical practice, including its duties, functions, career, facilities, and methods of medical treatment using such media or means as newspapers, online newspapers, periodical publications, broadcasting, telecommunications, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1657, Jun. 23, 2016). Moreover, medical advertisement prohibited under the foregoing provision includes not only medical practice but also all advertising related to medical care, such as medical person’s career, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do556, Jun. 23, 2016). The term “advertisement with false or exaggerated content” means a medical advertisement that contains any fact-finding or any fact-finding that may cause confusion to the general public with lack medical knowledge (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do9316, Feb. 26, 2009).

2. On March 17, 2015, the lower court indicated that the Defendant placed an advertisement that “IFS Rab Operational Operation IFS Rabs storage expenses,” which was sold on or around June 2014, and that it was “S Q Q certification,” although the Defendant did not obtain S Q Q certification, it indicated that the period of proof for ISO 9001, up to December 4, 201, was “IS 901 human evidence” and that it was false by posting “Medical Compensation Insurance” even if he did not purchase a medical compensation insurance on or around March 2015.