The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, stated accurately the content and capacity of the medical practice in F in the course of the procedure against F, and attached photographs in the case of face, so it cannot be deemed that the Defendant breached the duty of detailed recording in the medical record division under the Medical Service Act, and the Defendant’s duty of commission (in the case of this case, entered in the medical record register).

not specifically indicate the meaningful symptoms and the results of the diagnosis.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Medical Service Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, Article 22(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that “A medical person shall keep each medical record book, midwifery record book, nursing record book, and other records on medical treatment, and shall record and sign in detail the matters and opinions concerning medical treatment prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, such as the principal symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of the patient.” The purport of allowing a doctor in charge of medical treatment to prepare a register of medical treatment in a case where a doctor provides a patient, without omitting any information about the patient’s condition and progress of medical treatment, so that the patient can be provided with appropriate medical treatment, and after the completion of medical treatment, other medical personnel may be provided with such information so that the patient can use it as data to determine the propriety of the medical treatment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do2124, Jan. 23, 1998).