logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.09.25 2014노4356
의료법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal cannot be deemed to be limited to the place where the duty is to be performed under Article 41 of the Medical Service Act. In the case of a convalescent hospital where there is no need for urgent medical treatment of an emergency patient in light of the legislative purport of the Medical Service Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act, medical personnel on duty may be placed pursuant to its own standards pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act. As such, insofar as the Defendant stays in the place of residence outside the hospital four minutes and placed a doctor on duty by waiting for an emergency call, it shall not be deemed that the Defendant violated

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above provisions of the Medical Service Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates a ‘D convalescent hospital’ in Daegu Dong-gu C.

Although all kinds of hospitals have medical personnel on duty necessary for the treatment of emergency patients and inpatients, the Defendant operated the above hospital without having medical personnel on duty necessary for the treatment, etc. of approximately 130 inpatientss in the above D convalescent hospital from around 18:00 on June 24, 2014 to around 09:00 on June 25, 2014.

(b)be as indicated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. (1) The delegation of matters that limit the freedom and rights of the people to a subordinate norm, other than a law, should be clearly stated in the law itself to delegate them to a subordinate norm. As the law was wholly delegated by the subordinate law, the subordinate law cannot directly stipulate matters that limit the freedom and rights of the people, as it was delegated by the subordinate law. If this is allowed, it should be allowed to do so.

arrow