The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The advertisement as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant advertisement”) consists of medical practice and indicating the efficacy of specific diseases, thereby constituting an advertisement on medical treatment.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict by misapprehending the legal principles on medical advertising.

2. Determination

(a) No person, other than a medical corporation, medical institution, or medical person of the facts charged of the instant case, shall advertise medical treatment;

On October 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 2013, at the time of telegraph poles, etc. established in the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, published medical services advertisements by attaching 100 pages of the B4 pages of the 24th page "CD (100m from the entrance distance to the Fropical distance: 5m: Gnononobyalym)" with a size of 100 square meters in the size of the 10th page of the 24th page of the 24th page.

B. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the instant advertisement constitutes medical practice.

(c) 1) Article 56 of the Regulations related to the Medical Service Act (Prohibition, etc. of Medical Service Advertisement) (1) No person, other than a medical corporation, medical institution, or medical person, shall place an advertisement concerning medical treatment;

(2) The Medical Service Act strictly provides for the qualification requirements of a medical person, and prohibits an “medical act” of a person who is not a medical person, on the other hand, a person who violates Article 56(1) through (4), Article 57(1), or Article 58-6(2).