logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.09.23 2016노500
의료법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant is a private professional qualified person who obtained a bedclothes certificate issued by K. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The defendant's act of tin protection is not a medical act prohibited by Article 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act, but a medical act is an act of a medical care provider under Article 81 (1) of the Medical Service Act, which is likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health.

There was no perception that the defendant was engaged in medical practice without a license.

In addition, it is in violation of the Constitution that reads medical doctors, dentists, and oriental medical doctors to medical practices that are unlikely to cause harm to life, body, or public health, such as setting such a tiny, because it excessively limits the freedom of non-medical persons to choose occupation.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (1) As a matter of principle, Article 27(1) and Article 87(1)2 of the Medical Service Act provides that no person, other than a medical person, may engage in medical practice. Article 87(1)2 of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who violates this provision shall be punished.

This article completely prohibits a person who is not a medical practitioner from providing medical services is appropriate to protect the people's right to life and health, which is a very important constitutional legal interest, and to fulfill the State's duty to protect the people's health.

Since these critical public interests cannot be realized efficiently in another way that infringes on the fundamental rights of the people less, these provisions are unfair, such as the freedom of occupation of non-medical persons.

arrow