beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
Defendant
A and B shall be punished by fine of 3,000,000, and Defendant C shall be punished by fine of 1,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Article 24(1) of the former Mental Health Act (amended by Act No. 14224, May 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) does not provide for the receipt of documents that can be confirmed as the legal guardian under the language and text of Article 24(1) of the former Mental Health Act (amended by Act No. 1424, May 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) due to misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. In light of the fact that hospitalization by the legal guardian is basically accompanied by urgency, it is impossible for the legal guardian to obtain documents that can confirm as the legal guardian at night or on holidays, and that the head of a medical institution for mental illness, etc. bears the duty of emergency medical treatment in case of a medical person, it cannot be readily concluded that “before” means “before hospitalization” without exception.
Since the former Mental Health Act does not restrict the term of validity or the date of issuance of a document verifying the identity of a guardian, if the patient was hospitalized in a state where the relevant legal guardian had already received a document verifying that he/she is a legal guardian, the former Mental Health Act may not be punished even if it did not receive a document verifying that he/she is a legal guardian.
Even if the failure to receive a new document from the legal guardian prior to hospitalization constitutes a violation of Article 24(1) of the former Mental Health Act, Defendant A, B had justifiable grounds for believing that receiving the relevant document is permissible and believed as soon as possible after hospitalization in accordance with authoritative interpretation and administrative guidance by the Ministry of Health and Welfare or the competent public health clinic, and thus, it cannot be punished as an error in law with justifiable grounds under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.
Furthermore, the acts of Defendant A and B constitute legitimate acts under statutes or duties or acts that do not violate social rules.