의료법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors or misapprehension of the legal principles) added the grounds for appeal to the grounds for appeal that “Article 22(3) of the Medical Service Act applies only to cases where a physician prepares a medical record without directly diagnosing a patient, or directly conducts a medical examination without directly diagnosing a patient, and, as in the instant case, the physician directly examines a patient and prepares a medical record in the name of another doctor, and it is not applicable to cases where the physician prepares a medical record in the name of another doctor.” However, the above argument was filed after the deadline for filing the grounds for appeal was too excessive, and thus does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal. Accordingly, the above argument is not determined.
A. The crime of preparing false medical records under Articles 88 and 22(3) of the Medical Service Act is a provision for punishing a person who prepares a false medical record directly. The defendant who is not the person who prepares the medical record but the nominal person cannot be punished under the above provision.
B. Even if a family defendant can be punished for the crime of false preparation of medical records, an employee in the name of the D Hospital could not report the F, which is a medical doctor, to the competent authority on duty on Sundays on the day of the instant case. Therefore, the F was unable to prepare medical records in his/her name. The F prepared the medical records under the name of the defendant, who is the original medical doctor on duty, due to negligence not confirmed by the F, and the defendant did not have any conspiracy with another medical doctor for having another medical doctor prepare the medical records under the name of the defendant.
C. The crime of false preparation of medical records is a provision punishing only a intentional crime, and the defendant constitutes a criminal negligence in violation of laws and regulations due to such negligence, and the defendant cannot be punished as the above provision.