logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2020.11.05 2015도13830
의료법위반
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that "medical persons shall not provide medical services unless they establish a medical institution under this Act, and shall provide medical services within such medical institution, except in any of the following cases:

If the Medical Service Act allows medical personnel to provide medical services within a medical institution, it is not so, due to the deterioration of the quality of medical care and the infringement of the patient's right to receive proper medical care, the need for health care policy to prevent in advance any harm to medical order and serious harm to public health and hygiene.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26315, Apr. 14, 201). In addition, Article 34(1) of the Medical Service Act provides, “A medical person may, notwithstanding Article 33(1), give remote medical treatment to a medical person located in a remote place by using information and communication technology, such as computers and video communications,” thereby deeming the exception of Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act, which provides medical practice conducted in a remote place by a medical person to be limited to the act of a medical person on the part of a medical person.

In addition, when considering the current medical technology level, if a medical person provides medical services to a patient in a remote area through telephone, etc., it is difficult to expect the same level of medical services as the general medical care provided by monitoring the patient's condition near the patient, and due to the lack of information on patients and the restriction on the use of facilities or equipment installed in a medical institution, it is highly likely that improper medical services will be conducted, and as a result, it may cause serious danger to public health and sanitation.

Such medical practice is contrary to the purpose of Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act, and it is also the reason why the Medical Service Act permits remote medical treatment.

arrow