logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.01.30 2014노426
의료법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is as follows: (a) the Defendant, different from the IMO surgery in general, did not conduct a medical examination; and (b) did not perform a medical examination; and (c) did so in a manner similar to a oriental cryptive act, inasmuch as the Defendant was found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, it erred in the misapprehension of facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the defendant is a doctor, and the victim is a patient who is receiving treatment by attending the council run by the defendant.

The defendant is a medical person who did not obtain a herb doctor's license as a general or extra art.

No medical person shall perform any medical practice other than a license.

Nevertheless, the Defendant on July 23, 2012

9. Around 12. Around 12. Gumi-si C2, he/she used a siren in a D treatment room operated by the Gumi-si C2, and performed a cage treatment in which only a medical person who has a license for an oriental medicine doctor can do so on the part of the victim and ear.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant opened and operated D in Kumi-si C with a general outside of Korea; (b) the E doctor’s translation of E D. F’s textbooks and G, books written by H professors, and video lectures; (c) based on the theoretical basis for IMO treatment, M-Puncure principles; (d) the patient I complained of the Defendant’s right trees, shoulders, and hysology, which were applied to D operated by the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant complained of X-raray’s pains; (b) the Defendant complained of X-ray’s pains and plungs, which were found to have no special opinion, using the e.g., DNA surgery and plungs; and (b) the Defendant provided e., e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., malopic surgery and e., e., e.

arrow