logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.10.14 2013고정1692
의료법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a dentist of the E Hospital located in Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, who performs the duties of dental care and dental health guidance.

The defendant shall not refuse the request of a dentist for medical treatment without any justifiable reason.

Nevertheless, on October 4, 2012, the Defendant violated the prohibition of refusal of medical treatment by refusing to provide medical treatment by refusing to provide medical treatment to a patient F, who was admitted to his/her dental clinic at another dental clinic, to submit an EXE photograph, and to request the confirmation of whether he/she is an instructor of his/her Gu.

2. The term "medical treatment" means "medical treatment and treatment for a patient", and the term "medical treatment" here means "treatment and treatment for a patient with a well-contestable treatment and improvement."

Therefore, the patient’s request for medical treatment that is subject to refusal of medical treatment should be deemed to be “the patient is suffering from a disease or a wound and is premised on the patient’s request for medical treatment.”

Ultimately, as indicated in the facts charged, the phrase “a request for verification or appraisal” should be deemed to constitute “a request for verification or appraisal,” rather than a request for medical treatment that requires the diagnosis and treatment on the premise of the existence of a disease or a body of the disease. In other words, a request for verification or appraisal is deemed to constitute “request for verification or appraisal.”

(F) There is a question as to whether the Defendant intended to receive treatment of a disease even if incidental to the Defendant at the time of the visit, and there is no record of the F’s request for treatment of a disease beyond the need to compare the identity of the F’s photograph with the facts charged. Therefore, the facts charged of this case is that “the Defendant refused to provide medical treatment without a request for medical treatment,” and the facts charged of this case are as follows.

arrow