The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The Enforcement Decree of the Act cannot supplement the content of the rights and obligations of an individual provided by the Act without delegation by the parent law or provide new contents that are not provided by the Act. In particular, it violates the principle of statutoryism to provide for matters on criminal punishment and expand the scope of punishment by exceeding the explicit delegation of the Act. Thus, such Enforcement Decree is null and void as it goes against the principle of statutoryism (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Do1759, Oct. 15, 1998; 98Do2816, Feb. 11, 1999; hereinafter the same shall apply). Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 1438, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Do1759, Oct. 15, 199; 9Do2816, Feb. 11, 199).

On the other hand, there was a penal provision for a person who violates Article 41 in Article 90.

As such, Article 41 of the Medical Service Act only stipulates that all kinds of hospitals should have medical personnel on duty necessary for the treatment of emergency patients and inpatients, and does not impose any restrictions on the number of and qualifications for medical personnel on duty who should have all kinds of hospitals, and does not delegate them to subordinate statutes.

Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of this case”) provides that “The number of medical personnel on duty to be assigned to various kinds of hospitals pursuant to Article 41 of the Act shall be one for up to 200 inpatients, one for a dentist or herb doctor, and two for a nurse, and one for a dentist or herb doctor, and two for every 200 inpatients exceeding 200 inpatients, one for a dentist or herb doctor, and two for a nurse, two for a nurse.

“......”

Article 41 of the Medical Service Act provides that “A medical person on duty necessary for the treatment, etc. of a patient shall have a medical person on duty.”