The defendant shall be innocent.

1. No medical person who has summary of facts charged shall make a false record of medical treatment, etc. or intentionally make a false entry or revision in addition to the facts;

Nevertheless, around January 2, 2016, the Defendant revised an electronic medical record book differently from the fact that the Defendant, on the 7th floor of Seoul Gangnam-gu D Building, had performed the crypt operation at the above hospital around December 15, 2015 at the above hospital, while the crypt operation was conducted by F, an outpatient patient, but the said patient performed the crypt operation around December 21, 2015.

2. In light of the fact that Articles 19 and 21 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 14438, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same) distinguish between the original and the copy of the medical record, Article 22(2) of the former Medical Service Act provides for the duty to preserve the records, etc. of medical treatment (an electronic medical record refers to the original of the medical record, etc. pursuant to Articles 23(1) and 22(2) of the former Medical Service Act; the penal laws and regulations strictly apply according to the language and regulations; and they should not be expanded and analogically interpreted to the disadvantage of the defendant. In light of the fact that the “medical record register, etc.” prohibiting false preparation, revision, etc. under Article 22(3) of the former Medical Service Act, only “original” constitutes “original” and does not include “original”.

It is reasonable to view it.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, only the defendant issued a copy of the treatment register (printeds) revised according to the facts charged to the patient, and the electronic medical record was stored and preserved in compliance with the facts without revising the original, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that the original of the electronic medical record stored in the server was modified differently from the fact.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be deemed to constitute a false recording or intentionally recording or modifying additional records differently from the facts under Article 22 (3) of the former Medical Service Act.