201 Fixed4536 Violation of the Medical Service Act

A

An abnormal (prosecution) and a duplicating (public trial)

Law Firm B, Attorney C

2012, 10.25

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The defendant is a doctor who operates the Em-type Empology from the 9th floor of the New Buildings of Busan Jung-gu.

Around March 10, 2011, the Defendant posted an operation post at the foregoing E-type surgery that he/she received a double-pactic surgery with the front hH prepared by the patient G from August 22, 2010 to March 10, 201, the Defendant advertised the patient’s treatment experience in the surgery, such as inserting a hactic surgery written from September 19, 201 to March 10, 201, with the content that he/she received a double-pactic surgery, and inserting a hactic surgery written from September 19, 201 to March 10, 201.

2. Determination

As one of the medical advertisements prohibited by Article 56(2)2, the Medical Service Act stipulates "advertisement with any content that is likely to mislead consumers by guaranteeing the effect of treatment, etc.", Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act, which delegates specific standards of medical advertisements prohibited by the subparagraphs of the above Article 56(5), stipulates the prohibited acts in each subparagraph of Article 56(2), and one of them stipulates "an expression that the function or method of medical care of specific medical institutions is essential for the treatment of diseases or an advertisement with patient's experience or clinical experience for not more than six months."

The facts charged are medical advertisements prohibited under Article 56 (2) of the Medical Service Act, where the defendant posted the patient's post-operation equipment on the hospital website column. The following circumstances revealed by the records are as follows: in order to read the post-operation equipment on the hospital website, it is operated in a limited form only after joining as a member; the above post-operation equipment is operated in the limited form; the content of the post-operation surgery is about the patient's progress and satisfaction after the surgery; it appears to be in the form of sharing of experience or providing information based on subjective perspective; the general public is sufficiently aware that the effect of the surgery can vary depending on the patient's or other circumstances; K appeared as a witness at this court; K voluntarily provided the treatment equipment after the surgery with the satisfaction of the patient's request; there is no possibility that other patient's oral treatment equipment was provided with consideration or benefits from the hospital; and there is no possibility that other patient's oral treatment equipment was provided after the surgery; and it can be seen that other patient's oral treatment equipment was provided after the surgery.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judge Choi Sang-soo