logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.02.02 2016노2923
응급의료에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

In other words, it has not been proved that emergency medical services were performed at the emergency department of D hospital at the time of the instant case by misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal or misapprehending the legal principles, and E is not an emergency medical worker.

In addition, the instant beds are not medical facilities, but did not prove how the Defendant specifically interfered with emergency medical services.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to impose the punishment (3 million won).

Judgment

In fact, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the medical doctor F belonging to the department of emergency medical care or H team of the D hospital and the medical doctor F of the H team at the time of the instant case conducted a heart test, blood test, etc. with respect to the emergency patient I, and conducted emergency medical services, such as controlling blood pressure and preventing blood transfusion, with respect to the emergency patient J who was in an emergency room due to cerebrovascular, etc. The instant bedion corresponds to the medical facilities for the treatment or treatment of the emergency patient, and the Defendant interfered with the above medical treatment of the doctor F by force by force, such as obsing the emergency room at the time of the instant case, and harming the emergency room wheels.

Therefore, the violation of the Emergency Medical Service Act is sufficiently established regardless of whether E is an emergency medical worker.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

The crime of this case is highly poor in the nature of crime that the defendant interfered with emergency medical services by driving in the emergency room of the hospital in the influence of alcohol and damages the medical facilities.

In the past, the defendant has been punished several times by the crime of destroying property, interference with business, etc., and in particular, the crime of inflicting bodily injury, interference with execution of public duties, etc.

arrow