Whether the phrase “a medical person who prepares and issues a false medical certificate under Article 17(1)” under Article 66(1)3 of the Medical Service Act includes cases where “a person prepares and issues a false medical certificate under Article 17(1)” such as the name and qualification of a medical person as a medical person is falsely entered (affirmative)

Article 66(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that “The Minister of Health and Welfare may suspend the license of a medical person for a period not exceeding one year, if a medical person falls under any of the following subparagraphs.” Article 66(1)3 of the same Act provides that “when a medical person prepares and issues a false medical certificate under Article 17(1).” Article 17(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that “When a person prepares and issues a false medical certificate under Article 17(1)3, such as the name and license of a medical doctor,” and Article 66(1)3 of the Medical Service Act provides that “The act of a medical person prepares and issues a false medical certificate under Article 17(1)3 of the Medical Service Act shall also include the case where a false statement is made in the name and license of a medical person, as well as the name and license of a medical doctor:

Articles 17(1) and 66(1)3 of the Medical Service Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Health and Welfare

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu26249 decided January 14, 201

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 66 (1) of the Medical Service Act provides that "the Minister of Health and Welfare may suspend the license of a medical person for a period not exceeding one year if a medical person falls under any of the following subparagraphs." Article 66 (1) 3 of the same Act provides that "when a medical person prepares and issues a false medical certificate under Article 17 (1)." Article 17 (1) of the Medical Service Act provides that "no medical person shall prepare and deliver a medical certificate to a patient unless he/she engages in the medical service and directly conducts a medical examination." Article 66 (1) 3 of the Medical Service Act provides that "the act of a medical person prepares and delivers a false medical certificate under Article 17 (1)" includes not only the name and license of a medical person but also the case where a false statement is made, such as the name and license of a medical person who is a diagnosis (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du20570, May 10, 2007).

On the contrary, Article 66(1)3 of the Medical Service Act applies only to cases where a physician issues a medical certificate without a direct diagnosis, or directly conducts a medical examination, and then issues a medical certificate stating false diagnosis. The judgment of the court below that the disposition of this case against the plaintiff was unlawful on the ground that the medical doctor directly conducted a medical examination of a patient, but it does not apply to cases where a medical certificate is issued in the name of another doctor, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application under Article 66(1)3 of the Medical Service Act,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)