[의료법위반,명예훼손][공1988.2.1.(817),308]
Whether an oriental medical doctor's act of taking an injection to a patient constitutes an unauthorized medical practice under Article 25 of the Medical Service Act.
According to Article 25(1) of the Medical Service Act, medical personnel shall be prohibited from performing medical acts other than those licensed. Therefore, if an oriental medical doctor gives an injection to a patient without a license, he/she actually has the qualification of a doctor, or did not receive the medical fees, the establishment of an unlicensed medical act does not affect.
Articles 25 and 66 of the Medical Service Act
Defendant
Defendant
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No7989 delivered on August 28, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to Article 25(1) of the Medical Service Act, medical personnel shall be prohibited from performing medical acts other than those licensed. Thus, if the defendant, who is a herb doctor, gives an injection to a patient like the original adjudication without a license, he/she is practically qualified as alleged by the doctor, or even if the patient did not receive the cost of medical treatment due to his/her difficulty in living conditions, the establishment of non-licensed medical acts
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged.
The assertion is groundless.
According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the defamation of this case against the defendant, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)