의료법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The Defendant, not guilty, dismissed a request for an adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the president of the “C Council member” on the Daegu Suwon-gu B and the fifth floor.
(a) No person who violates the Medical Service Act due to solicitation of patients shall introduce, arrange or induce patients to medical institutions or medical persons for profit, such as exempting or discounting the principal's apportionment under the National Health Insurance Act or the Medical Care Benefits Act, offering money, goods, etc., offering transportation convenience to many and unspecified persons, etc., and instigate such act;
However, from February 2, 2015 to April 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) made a item of “traffic and return service” on the website (D) of the above member; and (b) posted the phrase of “traffic and return service; and (c) induced the patient to the said member for profit-making purposes by inserting the phrase of “traffic and return service.”
(b) Where a medical corporation, medical institution, or medical person that has violated the Medical Service Act due to an in-depth medical advertisement intends to run a medical advertisement using the media displayed on placards, posters, leaflets, traffic facilities, or means of transportation, among the advertisements other than rooftop advertisements defined in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Outdoor Advertising, etc. Control Act, it shall undergo deliberation by the head of the health and welfare department on the details, methods, etc.
However, without undergoing deliberation by the Director of the Health and Welfare Department, the Defendant run a medical advertisement by posting an advertisement stating “E” and “F” from February 2, 2015 to April 19, 2015, on both sides of the G Dota City or the vehicle used by the above member for business purposes.
2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty by taking account of each of the evidence in its judgment.
3. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The “act of offering transportation convenience to many and unspecified persons” under Article 27(3) of the Medical Service Act requires that a person actually provided transportation convenience. The Defendant is a member’s “traffic and return service” on its website.