의료법위반등
Of the judgment of the court below in the first instance, the part on defendant A and the second judgment of the court below are reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A. 700,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of violation of the Medical Service Act by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the facts charged against the Defendants. However, Defendant A did not have ordered Defendant B, a non-medical person, to operate the instant electrical operation equipment, and thus, Defendants B cannot be deemed to have conducted medical practice in collusion. Moreover, Defendant B’s act of operating the instant ice was merely merely an act for the inspection of the operation equipment, and thus, it cannot be deemed to constitute an act likely to cause harm to public health and hygiene unless performed by medical personnel. Even if Defendant B’s act constitutes medical practice, it is not in violation of the social rules, and thus, illegality is excluded. 2) It is not so on.
Even if the judgment of the court below was rendered, the punishment (for each defendant: 500,000 won) of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant A (as to the second judgment of the first instance court), the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of embezzlement of this case against the Defendant, but the Defendant calculated a reasonable number of expenses for the operation of the non-insurance operation of this case and received money from the patient for the purpose of receiving money from the patient for the original purpose of calculating the reasonable number of expenses due to unclear standards for the operation expenses of the non-insurance operation of this case, and did not intend to commit the crime of embezzlement or obtain illegal gains. 2) The lower court did not so.
Even if the court below's second judgment (the 500,000 won of fine) is unfair, it is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant A ex officio, this Court decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the judgment below. The first and second judgments of the court below found Defendant A guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.