[보건범죄단속에관한특별조치법위반,약사법위반,의료법위반][집35(1)형,649;공1987.4.15.(798),595]
(a) Whether an act of attaching a ice printed on the place of a new oriental medicine, pregnancy surgery, eating medicine, pharmacy consultation, ..............." to such a place violates Article 63 (3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act;
(b) Whether an act of employing a qualified medical person and filing a report on the establishment of a medical institution under the name of such person conflicts with Article 30 (2) of the Medical Service Act;
A. The act of attaching more than 1,00 stiks printed with "new single-baction, pregnancy surgery, pharmacy consultation............" to the 1,000 stiks located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City is an advertisement that suggest that the pregnant woman would not perform surgery when taking advantage of the circulation of the Defendant sold by the pregnant woman, which is in violation of Article 63 (3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which provides that the act of stiking the efficacy or performance of drugs, etc. shall not be advertised by cancer articles, photographs, designs and other visual methods.
B. The act of opening and reporting a medical institution under the name of a qualified medical person by investing necessary funds by the general public who is not qualified as a medical person is the most formally, and actually, it is contrary to Article 30(2) of the Medical Service Act, since a person, other than a medical person, establishes a medical institution.
(a) Article 63 (3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act;
B. Supreme Court Decision 81Do3227 delivered on December 14, 1982
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendants
Attorney Lee Im-soo ( all defendants)
Seoul High Court Decision 86No3060 Decided November 28, 1986
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
With respect to the first ground for appeal by the defense counsel
As determined by the court below, Defendant 1’s act of attaching 1,00 strings of 1,00 strings printed on “new oriental medicine, pregnancy surgery, eating drugs, pharmacy consultation 755-1309” with respect to the general exchange drugs that he manufactured at will without permission is in violation of Article 63(3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which provides that the act of a pregnant woman’s act of putting pregnant women at a place in Seoul Metropolitan Government shall not be advertised by cry articles, photographs, designs, or other visual methods as to the efficacy or performance of drugs, etc., and thus, it is groundless in the judgment below that there is no misapprehension of legal principles under Article 63(3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act in the fact-finding and application of the law.
As to the Second Ground of Appeal by the Defense Counsel:
The act of reporting the establishment of a medical institution under the name of a qualified medical person by investing necessary funds in the general public who is not qualified as a medical personnel and employing a qualified medical person under the name of the medical institution is deemed to be a lawful establishment of a medical institution only formally, and in substance, it is contrary to Article 30(2) of the Medical Service Act since a person other than a medical person establishes a medical institution. As such, there is no reason to deem otherwise that a medical person who is a title holder of the report on the establishment of a medical institution directly provides medical services (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do3227, Dec. 14, 1982). On the contrary of the opinion discussed, the lower
As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal:
The ground of appeal is that the fine sentenced to the Defendants is excessive, but such a ground of appeal cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal in light of the provisions of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)