In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Each medical person shall keep the records of medical treatment, assistance in child delivery, nursing records, and other records concerning medical treatment, and shall record in detail the matters and opinions concerning the medical acts prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, such as the main symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of the patient, and the details thereof.

Nevertheless, E, an employee of the defendant (the dental surgery of D hospital established by the defendant) of E, in connection with the defendant's work, prescribed the amount of aids and therapy to G, a patient, at D hospital located in Gyeongsan-si, around August 5, 2014. Around the 11th day of the same month, he/she had the above patient take X-ray photographs. Around the 13th day of the same month, he/she prescribed the amount of prescription to the above patient. Although he/she had the above patient take X-ray photographs on the 18th day of the same month, he/she did not record the patient's main symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, etc. in the treatment record, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Report of investigation (in relation to attachment such as a written request for vindication and medical prescription) and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of reference to fact (No. 28 list of evidence);

1. Articles 91, 90, and 22 (1) of the Medical Service Act relating to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (the grounds for conviction) are as follows. The defendant and his defense counsel stated the content of the prescription and the X-ray shooting instruction, and the auxiliary equipment did not enter any code to be entered, but they did not enter it in the nursing record, and thus they fulfilled their duty to enter in the treatment record, or they changed from August 7, 2014 to H due to the fact that E was changed from H to H, and E was merely a compromise. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, E, the defendant's employee, as stated in the criminal facts, did not have a duty to prepare the treatment record.