의료법위반등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The legislative intent of Article 22(1) of the Medical Service Act regarding the violation of the Medical Service Act is to clarify the responsibility for diagnosis, treatment, prescription, etc. of patients. The legislative intent of Article 22(1) is to clarify the responsibility of the Defendant for the diagnosis, treatment, prescription, etc. of patients. Since only the Defendant works as a doctor, and the electronic medical records prepared by the Defendant contain the name of the Defendant, the Defendant clearly made it clear that the Defendant is responsible for diagnosis, treatment, prescription, etc. of patients under the above legislative intent, the Defendant’s act cannot be punished under Article 22(1) of the Medical Service Act
Nevertheless, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.
B) As to the death by occupational negligence against the victim F, the victim cannot be anticipated at the time of committing suicide. In addition, in order to prevent the patient’s self-harm, the Defendant hospital installed 30 centimeters wide and vertical width so that adults can not easily get out of the window, and the windows fixed so as not to be able to get out of the windowed by the victim also set up in favor of the victim. However, the victim’s shock was left away from the window, and through this, the victim got out of the window. In this case, even if the constructor who constructed the hospital could be recognized as the negligence of defective construction, the Defendant cannot be deemed as having committed any negligence since it could not have anticipated the patient’s confidence at all. Nevertheless, the second instance court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the death by occupational negligence in relation to the death of the victim, which is the cause of death by occupational negligence.