logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.08.22 2013노1218
후천성면역결핍증예방법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The gist of the facts charged in the instant case and the judgment of the lower court was that the Defendant was a doctor operating the “E Hospital” under 701 of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DD Building, and the Defendant was unable to divulge any confidential information he/she became aware of in the course of performing his/her duties to infected persons while in office and even after retirement. However, on January 14, 2012, he/she requested the foregoing hospital to provide medical treatment, such as convenience, weight, stove, stove, stove, etc., and conducted a blood test with respect to F, which led to the result of the examination that the HIV (V) value of F is high, and the Defendant called the “G hospital”, which was issued a written request for medical treatment to F, and thus, he/she was removed from the first hospital to inform H of the fact that he/she could have become aware of the fact that he/she had been subject to the first surgery at the E hospital, by phoneing the “G hospital,” and thus, he/she could have returned to the first surgery.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case on the grounds that the aforementioned facts charged are sufficiently recognized according to the evidence duly examined and adopted.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to fall under the category of “infection person” as stipulated in Article 7 of the Prevention of Acquired immunodeficiencydeficiency Diseases Act by analogical interpretation or expanded interpretation, it is not sufficient to say that the training was conducted in the first screening test result. The second verification test is completed and it is judged that the second verification test is finally infected. The Defendant notified another medical person based on the result of the first screening test before the result of the second verification test in the second verification test. Nevertheless, the Defendant notified it to the other medical person.

arrow