logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.02.14 2013노1239
의료법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, the medical personnel who actually conducted a medical examination of patients and controlled and supervised vaccination was a member of the Medical Service Volunteers belonging to the church, and the Defendant merely performed medicine purchase under the name of the hospital operated by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have performed the “medical act” under Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act.

Even if the act of the defendant of his opinion constitutes medical practice, the defendant is merely a temporary vaccination for volunteer service at the request of a church, so it is not a "medical service" under Article 33 (1) of the Medical Service Act.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute an element of Article 33 (1) of the Medical Service Act.

B. The Defendant’s act constitutes “act that does not violate the social rules” as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act and thus is dismissed from illegality.

C. Article 18 of the Regional Public Health Act provides that "When a medical institution intends to perform an act that may affect the health of residents in a place other than a medical institution, such as health examination, vaccination, or tour medical treatment, it shall be reported to the director of the public health clinic having jurisdiction over the area where the medical examination, etc. is intended pursuant to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare." The defendant, who is not a legal expert, completed the report to the public health clinic of Yeongdeungpo-gu, which is the competent public health clinic pursuant to the above provision, and the defendant was aware that the defendant's act was permissible pursuant to Article 18 of the Local Public Health Act, and thus, the defendant's act constitutes an error in Article 16 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the defendant's act is held liable for being

2. Determination

A. The assertion that there is no possibility of constituting the constituent elements.

arrow