The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As a medical specialist, the Plaintiff is a doctor working as the director of C Hospital outside of the hospital around November 2018, and the Defendant is a patient who received treatment from the Plaintiff at the hospital.

B. On May 24, 2019, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Plaintiff (No. 2019 type No. 32000) by charges of forced indecent conduct of the above content on the Internet website, stating that “the Plaintiff forced the Defendant to escape clothes from the Defendant’s outer floor of C Hospital 1 on November 26, 2018 and the medical room where the upper part of the body was almost aware of, and forced to commit an indecent act by means of conspiracy, etc., under the pretext of treatment.” The Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff (No. 2019 type No. 32000).

(c)

On January 7, 2020, the prosecutor of the Go-gu District Public Prosecutor's Office's senior branch office did not engage in the above act with the intent of committing an indecent act against the defendant, such as that the plaintiff provided medical treatment to the defendant at will without the registration of some patients when he provided medical treatment, that part of the clothing store operated by the defendant was purchased by the defendant, that the plaintiff himself purchased the clothes, and that the plaintiff, who is a male nurse, did not direct the female nurse, and that he conspired directly with the defendant. However, it is doubtful that the defendant's statement alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff committed the above act with the intent of committing an indecent act against the defendant in light of the defendant's statements, such as the defendant's return, disease, treatment, and written applications prepared by the witness that the doctor would in inevitable cases of female patients, and that the doctor would directly refrain from performing the above act, and there is no evidence to prove this otherwise.

(d)

Although the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on charges of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) and intimidation (No. 31694). However, it is difficult for the prosecutor of the Speaker’s District Public Prosecutor’s Office to recognize the Defendant’s intentional intent on December 31, 2020 because it is difficult to readily conclude the Defendant’s accusation as false, and there was a purpose of slandering the Defendant.