의료법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds of appeal, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the instant hospital was the office-general hospital run by D and that it was employed by D who cannot establish a medical institution and performed medical practice in F dental clinic (hereinafter “instant hospital”).
may be seen.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant was a senior hospital operated by the instant hospital from the time the Defendant started working at the instant hospital, and that the Defendant was employed by D who was unable to establish a medical institution, and was engaged in medical practice.
It is difficult to conclude that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
① There is no direct and specific evidence that the instant hospital directly informed the Defendant of the fact that it is a office-general hospital operated by D, or that the Defendant was aware of such fact.
② The Defendant was provided only once a week with medical treatment at the instant hospital, and received daily payments, and appears to have not given any other doctors and employees any specific exchange outside working hours. As such, the Defendant may not be aware that the instant hospital was a general office-based hospital operated by D.
③ Since the Defendant did not directly participate in the establishment and operation of the instant hospital, it seems that the Defendant was difficult to understand the internal relationship with D, different from D.
④ Even if the Defendant was aware that D was involved in the operation of the instant hospital, the Defendant was aware of such fact.
Even if it is specific, it is clear whether D employs another doctor or only brings about a certain share of hospital earnings.