[1] The purpose of Article 18(1) of the former Medical Service Act

[2] The case holding that the elements of Article 18 (1) of the former Medical Service Act are not satisfied

[1] Article 18(1) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 4732 of Jan. 7, 1994) provides that "a medical doctor, dentist, or oriental medical doctor, other than a doctor, dentist, or oriental medical doctor, who has engaged in medical service and conducted a diagnosis or examination by himself/herself, shall not issue a medical certificate, written examination, written examination, or certificate: Provided, That where a patient under medical treatment dies within 48 hours from the final medical examination and treatment, a medical certificate or certificate may be issued even if a medical examination is not conducted again," and Article 67 of the same Act provides that a punishment against a person who violates the provisions of Article 18(1) of the same Act provides that a medical doctor, etc. shall indicate his/her decision on the results of the medical examination and shall be in charge of an important function such as proving the person's health condition and determining the civil and criminal liability, so that only a doctor, etc

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the act of a medical doctor, even though he did not examine a patient on the date indicated in the medical certificate, and issuing a medical certificate stating the future treatment period based on the result of the medical examination and the date of the injury, does not constitute a constituent element under Article 18(1) of the former Medical Service Act

[1] Articles 18(1) and 67 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 4732 of Jan. 7, 1994) / [2] Article 18(1) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 4732 of Jan. 7, 1994)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu16010 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2301) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16318 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1129)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yellow-si

Seoul District Court Decision 95No8151 delivered on April 2, 1996

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the mistake of facts

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the judgment of the court below, the first instance court acknowledged the fact that the defendant, as a medical specialist of the first instance court, the defendant was found to have failed to issue a medical certificate for the patient's non-medical treatment since he did not know of the date of injury or the period of treatment, although he confirmed that the non-indicted 1 was completely cured at the center of the second instance court located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 8, 1994 as a medical specialist of the second instance, and that the defendant did not issue a medical certificate for the patient's non-medical treatment since he did not know of the fact of injury or the period of treatment.

Examining the relevant evidence in comparison with the records, the court of first instance, which maintained the judgment of the court below, found that the defendant had been completely cured by confirming that the defendant did not know of the date of injury to the above milk, the treatment period, etc., and the fact that the defendant prepared another doctor without being aware of the fact that the fact that the defendant did not have any other doctor about the above milk, is recognized as having issued the certificate of injury diagnosis as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the above milk, so the fact of misunderstanding the above facts does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, since the court of first instance, which judged that it is necessary to confirm the process that he did not go together and refixed the upper part of the upper part of the upper part, and it is necessary to refixed the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part, and therefore, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment in this case.

2. As to the error of application of Article 18(1) of the Medical Service Act

Article 18(1) of the Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 4732 of Jan. 7, 1994 (amended by Act No. 4732 of Jul. 7, 1994) provides that "a medical certificate, written result of autopsy, or certificate shall not be issued, except a doctor, dentist, or oriental medical doctor who has engaged in the business of medical treatment and has conducted a diagnosis or examination: Provided, That where a patient under medical treatment dies within 48 hours from the date of the final medical examination, a medical certificate or certificate may be issued even if a medical examination is not conducted again," and Article 67 of the same Act provides that a punishment against a person who violates the provisions of Article 18(1) of the same Act provides that the medical certificate, etc. provides that a medical doctor, etc. shall indicate a judgment on the results of the medical examination and shall bear important functions such as proving the person's health condition and determining the civil and criminal responsibility, and thus, the purpose of this provision is to provide only the doctor directly

However, according to the facts duly established by the court of first instance and facts established by the records, the defendant, on June 8, 1994, through X-ray photographing on the above-mentioned milk and its right-hand balance, etc., he confirmed that the above injury was a process of treatment due to the combination of aggregates in the past, and the defendant's professional knowledge, who is a doctor, determined that the above injury requires a treatment period of about five weeks. The date of injury was transferred to the above baby's statement on May 2, 1994 and the future treatment period was issued to him on June 8, 1994. Thus, even if the defendant issued the medical certificate on June 18, 1994, which is a penal provision, it cannot be said that the medical certificate was issued to him on June 8, 1994, and the medical certificate was issued to him on June 14, 1994, the medical certificate was not issued to him on the examination date of the above injury.

Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's act falls under Article 18 (1) of the Medical Service Act, and found the defendant guilty, which affected the judgment by applying Article 18 (1) of the Medical Service Act to the error. The arguments are with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)