The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) is only the one to whom the patient was determined according to the criteria determined by the National Health Insurance Corporation itself, and there is no difference between the patient and the patient at a discount during the period in which the judgment of the court below was rendered.

In addition, the patient did not fully recognize the fact that the patient was discounted, and the defendant did not have any special circumstance such as providing money or goods to the patient or the actor or undermining the order of the medical market. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute soliciting the patient for profit under Article 27 (3) of the Medical Service Act.

2. Before the amendment of Article 25(3) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 6686 of Mar. 30, 2002), the former Medical Service Act provides, “No person shall introduce, arrange, or induce a patient to, or induce a medical institution or a medical person to do so for profit.” However, each medical institution has frequently induced patient attraction, such as exemption and discount of the patient’s charge, and provision of other imprative means of transportation for the purpose of attracting patients through competition with each other. As a result, an unreasonable competition among medical institutions led to a social problem, such as a decrease in the quality of medical service, etc., the act of exempting or discounting the patient’s share under the National Health Insurance Act or the Medical Care Assistance Act, providing money and valuables, etc., or providing transportation to many and unspecified persons, etc., and thus, the act of introducing, mediating, or inducing the patient to a medical institution or a medical person for profit, etc., which may not cause inconvenience to the general public.”