2012 High Court Decision 6471 Violation of the Prevention of Acquired immunodeficiencydeficiency Syndrome Act

00 (000000 - 000000), doctors

Seoul Residence

Seoul basic domicile

Written Examination ( Prosecution) and Full Examination (Trial)

Law Firm 00, Attorney 000

April 8, 2013

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a doctor who operates 00 non-humanity department in Seoul.

A person who has participated in the diagnosis, examination, medical treatment, or nursing of infected persons for AIDS shall be in office;

Of course, it shall not divulge any confidential information learned in the course of performing duties to infected persons after their retirement.

Nevertheless, on January 14, 2012, the Defendant requested the above hospital to provide medical treatment, such as para-ferry infection and large scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic A.

Summary of Evidence

1. A’s legal statement;

1. Some statements in each police interrogation protocol of the defendant and the police as to B;

1. A written request for medical treatment after △△ non-person and issuance thereof;

1. HIV/ A.S Street for medical personnel;

1. A criminal investigation report (Ministry of Health and Welfare reply);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 26 subparag. 1 and Article 7 of the Prevention of Acquireddeficiencydeficiency Diseases Act; Selection of a fine

1. The type to be suspended;

Fine 200,000

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day)

1. Suspension of sentence;

Article 59(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 59(1) that has no record of criminal punishment, and is deemed to have committed the instant crime by willful negligence, including the motive, circumstance, degree, etc. of the crime)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the act in this case does not constitute a constituent element, and even if the act in this case constitutes a constituent element of domestic affairs, the act in this case is an inevitable justifiable act to prevent the mother from spreading HIV to medical personnel, and thus, the illegality is eliminated.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the defendant appears to have recognized the fact that the defendant is infected at least by dolusia A, and in such circumstances, it is difficult to view the act of this case to constitute a justifiable act which can be accepted in light of the overall legal order including the above law, or the sound social ethics and social norms, and thus, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

First of all, regarding whether the Defendant had an intentional intent to the fact that A was infected, ① the Defendant was notified of the result of blood examination that A’s HIV values are high and that it was necessary to conduct a re-examination, and the Defendant was informed of this fact, and at the time, A showed a very chemical and serious reaction, and the Defendant’s medical records were discarded in whole. ② At around 2003, A was an infected person who was judged to have been infected with human immunodeficiency virus. ③ The Defendant was determined to have a high possibility of spreading HIV radio waves, in particular, the Defendant was determined to have a high possibility of spreading to medical personnel who participated in the operation process, and the fact that A’s HIV values were high.

Next, with respect to whether the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act, medical personnel should provide medical treatment under the assumption that all patients suffering from infections, such as HIV (HIV) and C. As such, special attention is not required when treating infecteds. Furthermore, for the purpose of preventing HIV radio waves to medical personnel in the course of medical practice, medical personnel do not have any obligation to notify their infections to medical personnel, and if the medical personnel know infections in advance or become aware of it, it is difficult to say that there is a need to share information on infecteds to protect the right to health of infecteds. In particular, it is difficult to view that there is no possibility that there is no possibility of infringement on the right to health of infecteds only 0% of public health clinics due to lack of understanding about infecteds and possibility of causing damage to infecteds through public health clinics, and that there is no possibility of infringement on the right to health of infecteds.

For the purpose of judge Yang Sung