의료법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is true that the defendant treated E, etc. in D department without filing a report on establishment, but this constitutes a case where he/she can provide medical treatment outside a medical institution pursuant to Article 33 (1) 2 of the Medical Service Act as a result of the patient’s individual request.
However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. As a matter of principle, the Medical Service Act allows a medical person to engage in the medical service within a medical institution established by the medical person to provide medical service outside the medical institution due to deterioration of the quality of the medical treatment and infringement of the patient’s right to receive proper medical treatment, etc., which led to a need to prevent any serious hazard to public health and hygiene. The term “medical treatment” refers to a kind of medical practice that cannot be performed by a medical person, other than a medical person, for the purpose of treating, examining, prescribing, administering, or administering externally, and taking the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances, given that a medical person has the duty of care to take the best measures required to control the patient’s life and body and health in light of the nature of the medical practice as seen above, in order to provide the best medical treatment, a medical person requested by the patient or his/her guardian shall prepare for the patient’s symptoms, situation, etc., and visit a place equipped with necessary apparatus, equipment, etc., and visit the patient and thus, need to provide medical treatment.”