logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.08.12 2015노457
의료법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, while operating the “C Hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”), had medical personnel on duty in accordance with the standards of medical statutes.

However, the doctor D on duty did not stay in the hospital, waiting in the nearby accommodation located at a distance of five minutes in the Do newsletter, and performed on duty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case solely on the ground that the defendant did not stay at the hospital of this case.

B. Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act provides that "a mental hospital, rehabilitation hospital, tuberculosis hospital, etc. may place a medical person on duty according to the patient's own standards so as not to interfere with the treatment of inpatients." The above "mental hospital, rehabilitation hospital, tuberculosis hospital, etc." refers to an exemplary list of medical institutions that do not receive an emergency patient. Since the instant hospital is not an emergency medical institution that receives an emergency patient as a convalescent hospital, it is not an emergency medical institution that receives an emergency patient, it is included in the above "mental hospital, rehabilitation hospital, tuberculosis hospital.

Therefore, it is not illegal even if the medical personnel on duty is not permanently stationed in the hospital according to its own standards to the extent that it does not interfere with the treatment of inpatients.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in finding guilty of the facts charged of this case on different premises.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances recognized by the lower court by evidence duly adopted and investigated the allegation of mistake of facts, i.e., (i) the literal meaning of “one-time medical person” refers to a medical person who resides in a hospital and performs duties that properly respond to an emergency situation. As such, “medical person on duty” refers to a medical person who works in a hospital and works in a hospital appropriately.

arrow