logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.11.20 2015노2180
의료법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 400,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With regard to the fact that an advertisement is likely to mislead consumers of mistake of facts, it is only possible to search experience fences, etc. without romanism due to an error or error of a manufacturer in the new production process of the website, and there is no fact that the defendant instructed or recognized it.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

(a) No medical corporation, medical institution, nor medical person, as described in this part of the facts charged, shall advertise with any content that is likely to mislead consumers by guaranteeing the effect of treatment, etc.

Nevertheless, around December 23, 2013, the Defendant posted a letter on the website of the above hospital stating treatment experience, treatment post-treatment devices, and improved vision values of patients who received treatment in the name of a general patient, artist, doctor, or foreigner patient at the above hospital to the effect that “as the time has been significantly improved after receiving the surgery at the above hospital,” and then made an advertisement that is likely to mislead consumers by making it open to the public so that anyone who accessed the above website can see it.

B. The lower court determined that this part of the facts charged is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence, such as the witness E’s legal statement, DNA surgery equipment, website manufacturer’s E-mail inquiry, and reply letter.

C. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether the defendant, who operates a hospital, as pointed out by the court below, had access to the website during the process of improving the website, and there was no doubt that the defendant could search the post-operation equipment at a certain point.

arrow