If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The Defendant is the president of the “C Hospital” located in the Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government B.

Although all kinds of hospitals have medical personnel on duty necessary for the treatment, etc. of emergency patients and inpatients, the Defendant operated the above hospital without having medical personnel on duty necessary for the treatment, etc. of approximately 40 inpatientss in the above C hospital from March 16, 2013 to 07:00 on March 16, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to replies to requests for investigation cooperation;

1. Articles 90 and 41 of the Medical Service Act for the crime concerned;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that since the C Hospital operated by the Defendant is a mental hospital, medical personnel on duty may be placed in accordance with the relevant hospital’s own standards pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act, and that this is not unlawful even if there was no medical personnel on duty on the part of the end of the day, such a case is

In addition, Article 41 of the Medical Service Act stipulates that all kinds of hospitals should have medical personnel on duty necessary for the treatment of emergency patients and inpatients, and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act provides for the number of medical personnel on duty to be employed by various hospitals.

In the case of a mental hospital under Article 18 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act, even if it is possible to place the patient according to his/her own standards so as not to interfere with the treatment of the hospitalized patient, it is only about the number of medical personnel on duty, and it cannot be interpreted that there may be no medical personnel

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.