logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.05.30 2013노3535
의료법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (hereinafter “C”)

[2] Defendant B was aware that Defendant A performed the instant procedure according to the direction and supervision of the doctor L who was working for the instant member, and was unaware of whether A had performed the instant procedure.

Therefore, as long as Defendant B does not establish the crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Medical Service Act, Defendant C should be acquitted.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (defendant A, B: each of the Defendant’s imprisonment of April, suspended sentence of two years, and Defendant C: fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant B and C argued the same purport in the original judgment. The lower court acknowledged that Defendant B and C had the same intention as in the original judgment. On the other hand, Defendant B had experience in performing the procedure related to the skin, such as working in the skin management room before the beginning of the instant Council member; Defendant B had taken the machine for the accelerator operation with A's introduction; Defendant B had independently performed the accelerator operation for several patients after learning the method of using the accelerator machines; Defendant B had prepared an office in the instant Council member and worked in the instant Council member from time to time; Defendant B had also known that the assistant nurse had been aware of the fact that he had been subject to the instant Council member's independent disclosure at the time of the first instance judgment; and Defendant B had also introduced the JJ to the Defendant after completing the above procedure at the court of first instance; and Defendant B had also been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been voluntarily given the Defendant at the time of the first instance judgment.

arrow