The judgment below

Of the guilty part and the innocent part, the part concerning occupational embezzlement, and the "specialized hospital".

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts-finding 1), the defendant's act of occupational embezzlement can sufficiently be found to have embezzled the intermediate materials of the victim's salary satisfy in collusion with D. 2) The violation of the Medical Service Act is recognized according to the medical advertising part part of the medical advertisement part of "Special Hospital" and the contents of the screen closure on the homepage at the bottom of 120 pages of the 120 pages of the evidence evidence, and the fact that the defendant's act of the defendant without being designated as a Special Hospital was exaggeratedd to "Special Hospital". (B) In light of the contents of the advertising part of the medical advertisement part of "non-absorbing, least good" and the location of expression, the expression "non-absorbing, least good" used by the defendant's website is the purpose of exaggerated advertisement in comparison with the performance of "Titco", which is the salary satisfy of the defendant's office. Thus, this part of the charges can

C) On the Internet homepage of the hospital, the Defendant posted the protruding room, which is the side effect caused by the other hospital’s medical treatment, to the extent that the patient interested in the co-marization, is easily aware of what kind of company’s room is and where the hospital using the company’s room is anywhere. Therefore, using the above expressions on the Internet homepage of the hospital in which the Defendant works, in violation of the Medical Service Act, is deemed to have made a comparative advertisement with other medical institutions. Furthermore, the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of one million won is too uneased and unreasonable) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the court below held that the above intermediate materials are prohibited from being taken out from the F Co., Ltd. or D, because the Defendant received the intermediate materials of the instant sponium from D, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.