logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.05.02 2013노179
의료법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not neglect due care and supervision to prevent a violation related to the lending of medical records, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment (fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The joint penal provisions, such as Article 91 of the Medical Service Act, and Article 91 of the same Act, are punished on the grounds that a corporation or an individual was negligent in neglecting the duty of due care or management and supervision in relation to the relevant business. In specific cases, whether a corporation or an individual was negligent in exercising due care or supervision shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances related to the relevant violation, i.e., legislative purport of the relevant Act, the degree of infringement of legal interests anticipated to violate the penal provisions, the purport of preparing joint penal provisions concerning the relevant violation, as well as the specific form of the relevant violation and the degree of damage or result actually caused by such violation, the scale of business

As to the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e.,: (a) the employees D of the Defendant’s hospital directly provided the EXE original film to the EF employee F of the said hospital, which was the medical record for G, the patient of the said hospital; (b) even if the Financial Cooperative was allowed to peruse the medical record only when it received a claim for medical fee, D could not have been aware of the contents of the relevant laws and regulations; and (c) the above D’s medical record to the third party.

arrow