logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2020.11.12 2016도309
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:

As above, the Medical Service Act stipulating that a medical person be engaged in medical service within a medical institution as above requires for medical care policy-making efforts to prevent this in advance, since medical order would be disturbed due to deterioration of the quality of medical care and infringement of the patient's right to receive proper medical care, etc.

(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 area by using information and communication technology, such as computer and video communications, by providing that “A medical person may give a remote medical treatment by providing medical knowledge or technology to a medical person,” while recognizing the exception under Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act, a medical person’s remote medical treatment act permissible at this time is limited to

In addition, considering the current medical technology level, when a medical person provides medical services to a patient in a remote area by telephone, etc., it is difficult to expect the same level of medical services as the general medical care provided in the vicinity of the patient and observe the patient's condition, and it is also difficult to expect the same level of medical care as the general medical care provided in the future, 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 can not be ruled out

This is against the purpose of Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act, and supports the full-time permission of remote medical treatment.

arrow