The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) D does not sell medical products, but merely provide advertising services and online settlement services for medical institutions and medical products. A medical delegation contract between the Defendant and the patient is made by visiting a member of the C (hereinafter “the instant hospital”) operated by the Defendant, and D’s “E website (E)” (hereinafter “instant website”).

to conclude a delegation contract for treatment and to have influenced the choice of a medical institution.

It is not possible to see that D's act of acting as a settlement agency is for the purpose of confirming sales from the advertisement, so that D's act of mediating and inducing patients was attempted.

It can not be seen as a crime, and the defendant is not recognized as a criminal intent.

2) An investigative agency made a disposition not to prosecute D several times, and the Defendant trusted this in trust, and thus, the Defendant did not have the awareness of illegality, and there are justifiable reasons therefor.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, 1) The defendant argued that even though the court below concluded an advertisement contract with D and paid the advertisement agency expenses, the defendant did not encourage D to introduce patients to the hospital for profit-making purposes, and that the court below shall comprehensively consider the facts acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined as follows, i.e., (1) D sells the above goods on the web site of this case and pay the remaining sales proceeds excluding 15% of the sales proceeds.