[1] The meaning of "other person's secret, which comes to his knowledge in medical treatment" under Article 19 of the Medical Service Act

[2] The case holding that the act of divulging medical secrets constitutes an act of divulginging medical secrets where a written statement to supplement the contents of the inquiry document submitted by a doctor to the court is prepared and delivered to a third party

[3] The case holding that the content does not constitute medical secrets in case where a doctor informed the perpetrator of the content that "a woman who became aware of the result of a diagnosis of a sexual assault victim was not satisfyed and was not found to have been satisfyed"

[1] Article 19 of the Medical Service Act prohibits a medical person from divulging "a person's confidential information known to him/her in the course of medical treatment". The term "confidential information protected by the Medical Service Act" refers to the fact that a doctor becomes aware of in the course of medical treatment based on the patient's trust, which is objectively deemed to be beneficial to a patient, or a patient's special prohibition of disclosure, and thus, is deemed to be worth protecting

[2] The case holding that in case where a statement is prepared to supplement the contents of the inquiry statement submitted by a physician to the court and delivered it to a third party, if it exceeds the degree of simple explanation of terms in the statement, and if it contains specific and detailed contents and other new matters, such as the patient's intent not directly treated or added based on the patient's trust, it constitutes an act of divulging medical secrets

[3] The case holding that in case where a doctor informed the perpetrator of the content that "a woman who became aware of the result of a medical examination of a sexual assault victim was not satisfyed and has not been discovered", this cannot be viewed as a medical secret because the victim's health and there is no error in view of medical opinion, and even if it is known to another person, it does not constitute a violation of the victim's social or personal interest

[1] Article 19 of the Medical Service Act / [2] Article 19 of the Medical Service Act / [3] Article 19 of the Medical Service Act

Defendant

Article 20

Law Firm Yang & Yang, Attorneys Shin Jae-min et al.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 40,000 won into one day.

To order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant acquitted Nonindicted 2 on December 14, 2002 of the fact that the Defendant disclosed confidential information learned in medical treatment.

Punishment of the crime

On November 13, 2002, the Defendant was aware of the fact that Non-Indicted 1 (the 16-year old age), who was sexual assaultd by Non-Indicted 1 (the 16-year old age), working at a hospital located in Songpa-gu Seoul, had been diagnosed. On January 2, 2003, the above hospital clinic requested for answers to the specific state of Non-Indicted 1 from Non-Indicted 2, who was the mother of the perpetrator of the above Non-Indicted 1, and the above Non-Indicted 1, namely, “Non-Indicted 1, it was not possible to find rape by a medical examination, and Non-Indicted 1 itself was the same as in the case of Non-Indicted 1, but it appears that it was not a specific gap in the medical treatment, but a gap in the content of the diagnosis about the above Non-Indicted 1, which would have been widely known to the extent that it would not have any specific treatment, and thus, it appears that it was not a satisfy in the medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 in the second trial record

1. The defendant and the non-indicted 3's statements among the interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor

1. Statement of Nonindicted 3’s statement prepared by the prosecutor

1. Each statement made by the judicial police assistant on Nonindicted 3 and 2

1. A statement (14 pages of investigation records) prepared by the defendant;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of criminal facts: Article 67 and Article 19 (Selection of Fine) of the Medical Service Act;

1. Attraction of a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Provisional payment order: Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

The defendant's defense counsel asserts that the contents of the above written statement prepared by the defendant are already known through fact inquiry reply to the court, and it cannot be viewed as confidential information under the Medical Service Act. Even if it is confidential, the above written statement was submitted to the court through non-indicted 2, and the non-indicted 2 had already known the contents of the written statement, so the delivery of the written statement does not constitute "disclosure of secret" or "disclosure of secret."

First, the contents of the above statement correspond to the secrets protected by the Medical Service Act.

It refers to a fact that is not known to the general public and that it serves as a benefit to the person himself/herself. Whether a fact constitutes a legally protected secret should be determined based on whether it is objectively and objectively worth protecting him/her, but it should also include cases where the person himself/herself is particularly free from disclosure. However, Article 19 of the Medical Service Act prohibits a medical practitioner from divulging another person's secret, which he/she has learned in the course of medical treatment, thereby obliged a professional ethics as a professional worker who maintains a secret that a doctor has learned in the course of medical treatment in order to especially protect confidential relationship with a doctor who is essential premise for accurate and appropriate medical treatment, and who is a professional worker who maintains a secret that a doctor has learned in the course of medical treatment. Accordingly, a secret protected under the Medical Service Act refers to a fact that a doctor has become aware of in the course of medical treatment based on the patient's trust, and objectively, it refers to a fact that is deemed worthy of protecting a patient's interest or a patient's special divulgence, and thus, it is worth protecting it.

However, the fact-finding report sent to the court on December 27, 2002 added the content of “non-indicted 1” to “non-indicted 1, although the fixed amount has not been detected and the marrout has been known, but there seems to have been a long gap in the direction of 6 and 9:0,00, and 12:00.” On the contrary, the statement prepared by the defendant, as recognized as the above facts constituting the crime, “as it is acknowledged as the above facts, the upper part of the defendant itself is light, and the old gap is not the one suffered at this time.” The above contents include the fact that the defendant came to know in the course of treatment and does not disclose it to the general public, which goes beyond the content of the patient’s personal interests, such as honor or shame, and thus, it is clear that the defendant’s opinion that he did not directly explain the new contents of the treatment until it goes beyond the content of the new statement that he did not have any value to protect the patient’s personal interests.

Second, the defendant's delivery of the above statement to non-indicted 2 constitutes a "disclosure of secrets." The "disclosure of secrets" refers to the notification to a third party who is not aware of secrets. Even if the above non-indicted 2 already knows the contents of the fact inquiry statement through the court's access to the trial records, it is clear that the delivery of a statement containing new matters attached to the fact inquiry statement to non-indicted 2 constitutes an act of "disclosure of new additional secrets." Furthermore, even if the defendant prepared a statement with the intention to submit it to the court after contact with the attorney who was exposed to the court at the time of trial, it is sufficient to judge that the act constitutes a "disclosure of secrets" and that there was an intentional intention as well as the act of "disclosure of secrets."

Therefore, all of the defense counsel's arguments are not accepted.

Judgment on the acquittal

1. Summary of the facts charged

On December 14, 2002, the prosecutor indicted Nonindicted 1 of violation of Article 19 of the Medical Service Act with regard to the fact that the Defendant, at the above hospital clinic on December 14, 2002, disclosed the secrets of the above Nonindicted 1, which he came to know in the medical treatment, by explaining the contents of the diagnosis to the effect that the Defendant requested Nonindicted 2, who was the mother of Nonindicted 4, who was the mother of Nonindicted 1, to answer the question of whether to detect the sexual harassment and the quality of the sexual intercourse, whether to issue a medical certificate, etc.

2. Determination:

As to the above facts charged, the Defendant asserted that, at the time, Nonindicted 2, the mother of the perpetrator, sought large amount of agreement on the grounds that the father’s wife and the father’s wife were damaged, the Defendant presented the medical records of Nonindicted 1, and that Nonindicted 1 did not issue a medical certificate on the existence, etc. of sexual intercourse or loyalty to Nonindicted 2, and that he did not actively explain or inform the contents of the medical examination and treatment, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed as an act of divulging it, and even if such contents were known, it does not constitute a secret to protect Nonindicted 1, as it does not constitute a multi-faceted fact.

A. First, we examine whether the defendant's act constitutes "disclosure".

According to the evidence duly adopted earlier, Nonindicted 1’s mother, Nonindicted 3, at the time, appeared to have been suffering from the diagnosis form “comforely” to Nonindicted 2, who requested reconciliation. Nonindicted 10 million won or more, and Nonindicted 2, on December 14, 2002, stated that the Defendant was found to have been aware of such talk, and that the medical record was presented to Nonindicted 1’s parent, and that the Defendant did not talk with Nonindicted 2 on the fact that Nonindicted 2 did not respond to the fact that Nonindicted 3 did not know that the Defendant had been informed of the fact that the Defendant was not informed of the fact that the Defendant was not informed of the fact that the Defendant was not informed of the fact that she was not informed of the fact that she was not informed of Nonindicted 1’s wife, and that the Defendant did not respond to the diagnosis form. In full view of the purport and the fact that the Defendant was not informed of the fact that she was not informed of the fact that she was not informed of the fact.

B. Next, we examine whether the contents delivered by the Defendant constitute medical secrets.

As stated in the previous decision on the defendant's argument, the medical law's secret refers to the fact that the doctor becomes aware of the patient's knowledge in the medical treatment process based on the patient's trust, and objectively deemed as benefit to the patient, or that the patient's disclosure is worth protecting the patient as a secret. However, the defendant's prosecuted facts that the defendant disclosed to the non-indicted 2 are as follows: "Non-indicted 1's wife was not imprisoned, and there was no compromise with it, and there was no fact that the medical certificate has been issued." In addition, the above contents are matters that the doctor cannot be known without the patient's medical opinion. However, even if the facts are known to the other person, it cannot be deemed that the non-indicted 1 or his parent's social or personal interest has been infringed, and it is difficult to recognize that the non-indicted 1 or his parent's negotiation with the other party as a secret in a criminal case would infringe on the other party's legal interest. However, it is difficult to recognize that it is a legitimate means for the victim's self-concilizing the victim's legal interest.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the above facts charged against the defendant cannot be deemed to have disclosed secrets worth protecting the law, or it is not sufficient to prove such evidence, so the defendant shall be acquitted under the former or latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Cho Yong-ho