The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a doctor provides medical treatment to a patient with respect to a violation of the Medical Service Act, he/she shall prepare a medical record book with details of the medical practice and his/her opinion recorded pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Medical Service Act;

As such, the purport of allowing a doctor in charge of medical treatment to prepare a register of medical treatment lies in allowing a doctor in charge of medical treatment to accurately record information on the patient’s condition and the progress of medical treatment without omitting information, allowing the doctor to use such information for patient treatment continuously thereafter, allowing the patient to receive appropriate medical treatment, and allowing another person engaged in medical services to use such information as data to determine the appropriateness of the medical treatment after the completion of the medical treatment.

Inasmuch as the Medical Service Act does not have specific provisions regarding the method of preparing a medical record division, a doctor is at a discretion to prepare a medical record register by means of his/her own determination as effective, a doctor shall choose any method and use the patient’s continuous treatment, provide information to other medical personnel, and record in detail to the extent sufficient to determine the propriety of medical practice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do2124, Jan. 23, 1998). In order to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of the medical record division, a doctor’s signature shall not be omitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do16577, Jun. 23, 2016). Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Medical Service Act on the grounds that the doctor’s signature was omitted in the medical record book among the facts charged in the instant case, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the violation of the Mental Health Act, the lower court held that the Defendant, as the director of the mental medical institution, was two persons without protection while hospitalized F, who is a mentally ill person, as the director of the mental medical institution.