beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and C and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Even if Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts) provided face-to-face medical treatment to K of a mentally ill person, Defendant stated that the period of hospitalization in the written consent of hospitalization was “ July 4, 2015,” the period of hospitalization was merely a mere rejection of the date, and the Defendant did not have any intention to make a false statement retroactively to the date.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this part is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the fact-finding and legal principles, the Defendants, as a medical specialist in the department of mental health, were entirely entrusted with the authority to determine hospitalization of a mentally ill person by H, the director of the J Hospital, which is the director of the mental medical institution, and accordingly, when hospitalized a mentally ill person with the consent of the person without protection, the Defendants did not receive the above documents by implied agreement between the above H and the medical doctor, which would subsequently be corrected. In light of the fact that Article 58 of the former Mental Health Act provides both punishment provisions, and Article 24(1) of the former Mental Health Act imposes a fine on the corporation or individual who is the principal of the duties as well as the punishment of the offender, the Defendants cannot be deemed as the representative of the mental medical institution.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to receive documents from the duty to protect the mentally ill person in a mental medical institution with the consent of a person without protection according to the above H, who is the president of the J hospital, to confirm that the mentally ill person is the person without protection. Even if not, the Defendants constitute “offender” as prescribed in Article 58 of the former Mental Health Act, and thus, should be punished accordingly.
Nevertheless, the Defendants are not guilty of this part of the facts charged.