[ad_1]
Check-in 2020.12.03 12:00
According to the court on day 3, the third party of the Supreme Court (Ref. Lee Dong-won) upheld the lower court ruling of fines of 500,000 won to the oriental doctor Yumo, who was put on trial for violating medical law on the 12th of last month.
In April 2014, Mr. Yoo, a practicing Oriental doctor, prescribed herbal diet drugs for the patient, Kim Mo, through a telephone interview. The prescribed dietary herbal medicine was given to Kim during labor. After taking the prescribed herbal medicine, Kim complained of pain from the side effects.
It is true that Yoo made the medicine only by telephone consultation. For reasons as such, he insisted that Yu’s conduct was not a violation of medical law.
The first trial was fined 500,000 won for alleging that Yoo violated medical law. The first trial court said: “As a method of telephone call, only an ‘interview’ is possible between the diagnostic methods that determine the patient’s bed and the name of the disease. Depending on the patient’s specific symptoms and circumstances, He said: “The duty of care of medical professionals who need to act can be neglected.”
He added that “treatment still means face-to-face treatment, and it is important to interpret that treatment by telephone is not included here unless telemedicine requirements are met.”
Yoo’s side appealed that the ruling in the first trial had legal misconduct and that the sentence was unfair. Article 33 (1) of the Medical Law, which stipulates that ‘medical care must be provided within a medical institution,’ is unconstitutional, and a request for a trial was filed by unconstitutional law.
However, the second trial rejected the appeal from Yoo’s side and convicted him of his crime. The second trial court said: “Considering the current medical level, it is difficult to see that medical services at the same level as face-to-face treatment can be provided by non-patient-facing treatment, such as a telephone interview. “Article 1 cannot be considered to allow treatment in a way that does not confront the patient, such as telephone treatment.”
The second trial also rejected the request for an unconstitutional legal trial.
Mr. Yoo said: “Article 33, Paragraph 1 of the Medical Law stipulates that ‘medical services must be performed within a medical institution.’ It is not clear if that means”, he applied with the intention of “this goes against of the principle of clarity “.
Consequently, the Second Court said: “Just because the constitutive requirements of the punishment laws should be clear, all the constitutive requirements should not be stipulated in a simple narrative concept.” “It’s a lot to interpret in the sense that you have to act face to face.”
Furthermore, “the legal provisions in this case are not intended for the general public, but only professional medical personnel, such as the defendants, are limited to prisoners.” This doctor must perform medical treatments such as face-to-face treatment within a medical institution, and it seems to be predictable enough that if he violates this he will face criminal penalties ”.
The Supreme Court also supported the court ruling. The Supreme Court said: “It is reasonable to assume that medical practices performed by medical personnel on patients in remote locations using information and communication technology beyond the practice of medical personnel in front of medical personnel violate Article 33, paragraph 1 of the Medical Law “. It stated that there was no fault in not completing the necessary hearings or misinterpreting the legal principles related to medical law, such as claiming the grounds for the appeal.
