1. The court below dismissed the charge of this case on the ground that Article 88, Article 21 (1) and (2) of the Medical Service Act is not a provision punishing a violation of Article 21 (2) of the Medical Service Act except for the case of violation of Article 21 (1) of the Medical Service Act, and Article 88 of the Medical Service Act is limited to a violation of Article 21 (1) of the Medical Service Act. Meanwhile, according to Article 88 of the Medical Service Act, the prosecution against a person who violates Article 21 (1) of the Medical Service Act must be prosecuted, and Article 21 (1) of the Medical Service Act is not a violation of Article 21 (1) of the Medical Service Act, but a copy of the medical records, etc. of the medical records of the deceased patient who provided a copy of the medical records, etc. to a person other than the patient, and the prosecution against the person who violated Article 21 (1) of the Medical Service Act is not a violation of Article 21 (2) 3 of the Medical Service Act.

2. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A criminal complaint is a declaration of intent that the complainant reported a certain criminal fact to an investigative agency to seek punishment for the criminal defendant, and such criminal fact should be specified. However, the specific degree can only be determined by specifying a specific criminal fact and seek punishment for the criminal defendant. It does not need to specify the criminal fact by clearly stating the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do1213, Jul. 23, 1985; 97Do1769, Mar. 26, 199).

Article 21(1) of the Medical Service Act prohibits a medical person or a person working for a medical institution from reading or delivering a copy of the records concerning a patient to another person who is not a patient. Article 21(2) of the same Act allows a person who is close to a patient to make a request by a patient with consent of the patient himself/herself and documents indicating his/her kinship, or where there are provisions in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. According to the records, it is pointed out that the primary purpose of the complaint by G was to issue the records concerning a F’s medical treatment to G without confirming the relationship between G and F through his/her family relation certificate, etc. However, it is pointed out that G is different from investigating the violation of Article 21 of the Medical Service Act in the complaint, and that the investigation agency also stated that the above act of the defendant is in violation of Article 21(1) and (2) of the Medical Service Act. If comprehensive consideration of the type of Article 21(1) and (2) of the same Act and the details of the complaint by G is that the defendant’s act constitutes a violation of Article 21(1) of the Medical Service Act.

Therefore, since the indictment procedure of this case cannot be deemed null and void due to the violation of the provisions of the law, the court below should have rendered a judgment of dismissing public prosecution, rather than a judgment of dismissing public prosecution, if the facts charged in this case are not a crime as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the public prosecution of this case on the ground that the public prosecution had not been instituted against the fact that the complaint was not filed. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the complaint, thereby affecting the conclusion

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Kim Jong-il