logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.05.29 2017고정1738
의료법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From November 2005, the Defendant is a herb doctor who operates one of E on the third floor of the building D in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu.

No medical person shall make an advertisement concerning medical treatment, including any content not recognized objectively or groundless.

The Defendant, from around December 2, 2016 to January 2017, on the home page of the Republic of Korea, had no ground or objective recognition as to whether the Defendant independently developed the high-concentration diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver

The contents of "" were posted and advertised.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation of the Seongdong-Nam market;

1. Article 89 of the relevant Act and Articles 89 subparagraph 1 and 56 (2) 7 of the Medical Service Act for the selection of criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The argument that the advertisement of this case is not an advertisement of medical practice is an advertisement of medicinal medicine, and the above argument is rejected.

2. The instant advertisement, based on the assertion that it is not objectively recognized or groundless, is recognized that the Plaintiff developed the highly concentrated diverse for the first time in the world, and thus, it is difficult to view that only the capsule was developed for the first time in the world.

B. The defendant only applied for trademark registration, and there is no objective basis for this, in relation to whether a child's "gulule," "gule," was developed for the world's first time.

arrow