의료법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won.
Defendant
B The above fine shall not be paid.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that Defendant B did not have any act of leaving the G dental clinic (hereinafter “the hospital of this case”) located at the time specified in Article 1-A of the facts charged with the act of throwing away from and processing of the substances that cannot be performed only by dental technicians, and Defendant B did not have any act of leaving the said hospital back to a medical person who is not a dentist at the time specified in Article 1-2 of the facts charged.
Therefore, Defendant B and Defendant A, who employed Defendant A, committed a violation of the Medical Technicians Act (hereinafter “Medical Technicians Act”) and a violation of the Medical Service Act.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the relevant court below, the following facts can be acknowledged.
A. Defendant A is a dentist operating the instant hospital, and the dentist I and dental technicians employed Defendant B, etc. and had them engage in the said hospital.
B. H received cardiopulmonary treatment at the instant hospital at the time of the facts charged, and I was in charge of the treatment.
3. Judgment on Defendant B
A. On June 13, 2013, at around 14:30 on June 13, 2013, Defendant B, despite that it is not a dental technician, Defendant B, at around 1.1 of the facts charged as to Article 1. A. (1) of the facts charged. Defendant B, at around 1.30, processed the temporary scrap metal products for the four front her temporary attachment to H in the instant hospital, after deducting the temporary scrap metal products attached to H in the instant hospital, attached to H in the instant hospital, and confirmed and adjusted the connection between H’s dental technicians.
2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in the records of the judgment, the statement of the branch court, which is a direct evidence of this part of the facts charged, is not reliable, and other evidence alone proves that the facts charged are beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, Defendant B’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.