The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal, “medical person” which is an identification offender under Article 22(2) of the Medical Service Act includes any medical person who is affiliated with the founder of the pertinent medical institution that preserve the relevant medical records and conducts medical practice. Therefore, even if the Defendant, who was affiliated with the educational foundation that established the instant medical institution, did not provide medical treatment to the said nine patients, is obligated to preserve the relevant medical records.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not bear the duty of preserving medical records and thus acquitted the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. In light of the purport of Article 22 of the Medical Service Act, the lower court determined that the “medical person” who is obligated to prepare and preserve the medical records, etc. should not include a doctor in charge of the medical examination and treatment, not a doctor who actually provided the patient with the medical records, in order to accurately record and preserve information on the patient’s condition and the progress of the medical treatment, allowing the patient to use such information for the patient’s treatment continued, and allowing other medical personnel to provide the patient with appropriate medical services, and allowing other medical personnel to use such information as data to determine the appropriateness of the medical treatment after the completion of the medical treatment, and should not include the “medical person” who is obligated to prepare and preserve the medical records, etc.

In light of the above legal basis for the judgment of the court below, the court below's decision is sufficiently acceptable, and the prosecutor's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

3. Conclusion, prosecutor.