logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1984. 4. 10. 선고 84도225 판결
[의료법위반][집32(2)형,497;공1984.6.1.(729)867]
Main Issues

Whether the advertisement of medical appliances is included in the advertisement of medical practice (negative)

Summary of Judgment

In full view of Article 46(4) of the Medical Service Act and Article 33(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 2(9), Article 63 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and Article 48 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the advertisement on medical appliances shall not be included in the advertisement on medical appliances.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 46 (4) of the Medical Service Act, Article 33 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act, Articles 2 (9) and 63 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 48 of the Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Busan District Court Decision 83No1562 delivered on October 18, 1983

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 46 (4) of the Medical Service Act and Article 33 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the scope of medical advertisement which a medical person can engage in. 1. The name, gender, and type of license of medical person; 2. Specialized Department; 3. The name, location and telephone number of a medical institution; 4. Medical care days; 4. Medical care hours; and 4. Medical care hours; pursuant to Article 2 (9) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, medical appliances are used for the purpose of diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of human or animal diseases; and appliances, machinery, or equipment designated by the Minister of Health and Welfare for the purpose of affecting the structure and function of human or animal; and Article 63 of the same Act and Article 48 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide the scope of advertisement of medical appliances, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)

arrow