logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.09.06 2015고정1757
의료법위반
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that a dentist who operated an E dental clinic on the 1st basement of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, 204 and the e dental clinic on the 1st underground, and that a medical person shall not perform any medical practice

Nevertheless, on September 19, 2008, the Defendant, at the above E dental clinic, provided F with the Bostox surgery using the Bostox surgery, provided a dentist with the treatment for beauty art purposes other than dental treatment purposes, and thereafter, provided a total of 63 Bos and filters, growth-manmons, and solar injection for the purpose of beauty art, as shown in attached Table 1 and 2, until January 2, 2012, as shown in attached Table 1 and 2.

2. Determination

A. Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that no person, other than a medical person, shall perform any medical practice, and no medical person shall perform any medical practice other than those licensed.

On the other hand, the purpose of the Medical Service Act is to protect and promote the health of the people by allowing all citizens to benefit from high-quality medical care, and the reason for punishing medical personnel who perform medical acts other than those licensed is to prevent risks that may occur to human life and body or public health, and to protect and promote the health of the people.

In addition, it is also necessary to first consider the overall level of medical care in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Medical Service Act so that the benefits therefrom can return to the people. As long as the procedures using Stockholm, etc. have already been used for various purposes in dental medicine, it is desirable to interpret the relevant provisions in the direction that the possibility of choice of medical consumers is widely opened for the development of medical care and the improvement of medical service level, as long as the risks to public health and hygiene therefrom are not actually high and systematic education, verification and regulation is being performed with respect to the medical profession.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do850 Decided July 21, 2016).

arrow