1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000;

2. In a case where Defendant A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who is the planning director of B Hospital (D located in Sung-gu, Changwon-si), which is a medical institution established by the CMedical Foundation.

No medical corporation, medical institution, or medical person shall place an advertisement with false or exaggerated content, an advertisement that compares with the functions or methods of medical treatment of other medical institutions, a medical person's serious side effects, etc. with respect to the functions or methods of medical treatment, or an advertisement that lacks objective grounds, or that is expressed in the form of an article or expert opinion using an advertisement, newspaper, broadcasting, magazine, etc.

Nevertheless, from July 1, 2011 to B (E), Defendant A advertised the medical service by inserting contents such as “the highest medical professionals, latest-type equipment, highest medical facilities, national-level excellent general hospital for evaluation of medical institutions,” “a case where one recommendation has not occurred during the period of 1,000 times,” “a case where one recommendation has not occurred, such as side effects after surgery,” “a consultation on newspaper articles,” and “a professor of mental health department of FB hospital”.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on monitoring illegal cases and closure data;

1. Articles 89 and 56 (2) and (3) of the Medical Service Act related to the crime;

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of an alternative fine;

4. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse.

5. Part concerning the dismissal of prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As indicated in the facts charged, Defendant B Hospital committed a violation of the duties of Defendant B Hospital by the planning Director, the Vice Director, of Defendant B Hospital, as stated in the judgment.

2. The prosecutor examined the judgment and applied Articles 91, 89, and 56(2) and (3) of the Medical Service Act to the facts charged on the premise that the defendant B hospital is a corporation. However, according to the records, the B hospital is not a corporation.