의료법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received investments from B and C, and the Defendant tried to raise the size of the hospital by taking charge of administrative and management affairs, but did not perform the duty of nonperformance of obligation, such as B and others, and did not perform the proper investment and allocation of roles. In fact, the Defendant established and operated the oriental care hospital of this case.
However, under the interpretation of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, only a case where a non-medical person establishes a medical institution and employs a non-medical person and conducts medical practice merely after being employed by a non-medical person, is punished, and is not subject to punishment where a medical person conducts the same business with a non-medical person, or
Even if a medical person is included in the case of opening a medical institution with a non-medical person and working together with a non-medical person, the Defendant operated the hospital in a leading position, and the mere agreement on the business does not constitute “the act of opening a non-medical person’s medical term” under Article 33(2) of the Medical Service
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the ground that the act of opening and operating a Rvalescent with B and C constitutes an act of opening and operating a medical institution prohibited under the main sentence of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act in light of such circumstances by clarifying that the Defendant is subject to punishment under the Medical Service Act even when a medical person and a non-medical person jointly opens and operates a hospital.
Examining the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below, the facts and circumstances as stated in the judgment below can be recognized.
Provided, That the judgment of the court below is the case of the Incheon District Court 2014No1924, September 26, 2014.