earticle

영어

The Article 17 (1) of the Medical Service Act states that no one but medical doctor, dentist or herb doctor shall prepare medical certificate, post-mortem examination, certificate or prescription. Though medical certificate, post-mortem examination or certificate is a private document issued by doctor personally, it is accepted as reliable as public document. Therefore, for medical certificate, post-mortem examination or certificate, unlike other private document to guarantee authenticipy of the content, the Article 233 of the Criminal Act states the Crime of Issuance of Falsified Medical Certificates. In other words, the Criminal Act Article 233 states that If a medical or herb doctor, dentist or midwife prepares false medical certificate, post-mortem examination or certificate life or death, one shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than three years, suspension of qualifications for not more than seven years, or a fine not exceeding thirtht million won. The subject of the Crime of Issuance of Falsified Medical Certificates is only a medical or herb doctor, dentist or midwife and the eligibility requirements are specified in the Medical Service Act. Medical certificate is the medical document to be issued by medical doctor to certify the health status and show the Jugdement about the result of the diagnosis, Post-mortem examination is the document to be listed by medical doctor to confirm medically about human body or dead body, and Certificate life or death is a kind of medical certificate to verify the fact of birth or death, the cause of death, such as Birth Certificate, Certificate of Stillbirth or Certificate of Dead Fetus. To constitute the crime of Issuance of Falsified Medical Certificates, it is necessary for the contents of the certificate to be substantially contrary to the truth, as well as it is needed the subjective perception that the contents of the certificate are false. The Supreme Court Decision 2004DO3360 Delivered on March 23, 2006 declared that although the Defendant did not MRI scan, etc. for precise observation about the disability status of Mr Park, it was difficult to believe that the contents of the Disability Certificate of this case were contrary to the objective truth or the defendant had perception that the contents of the certificate were false. I don't agree with the Supreme Court Decision, because the Supreme Court confirmed the decision by the court below despite the Supreme Court should have made the court below retry the reason why the Defendant did not MRI scan, etc. for precise observation about the disability status of Mr Park.