Decisions

All

TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1763 Decided September 13, 2012[Medical Service Act Violation] [full Text]
Summary
[1] Whether medical advertising constitutes ""soliciting"" of patients as provided by Article 27 (3) of the previous Medical Service Act (negative in principle); and whether medical advertising constitutes ""referral or soliciting"" or the ""incitement"" of patients, when the act was performed by a medical personnel's employee or a third party upon the medical personnel's request (negative) [2] In a case where Gap (a doctor), Byung (CEO of defendant corporation Eul) sent emails consisting of an advertisement event concerning ophthalmic surgery to members of the website operated by Eul, and were indicted of violating the previous Medical Service Act: the case holding that defendant Gap's act of sending emails was medical advertising and does not constitute ""soliciting"" of patients, unless under unique circumstances; even if the advertising was performed by a corporation such as defendant Eul, the act does not constitute ""referral or soliciting"" of patients, or the incitement thereof; and that the judgment below which perceived otherwise and found the defendants guilty was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle and etc.

TITLE

Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1763 Decided September 13, 2012[Medical Service Act Violation] [full Text]

Summary

[1] Whether medical advertising constitutes ""soliciting"" of patients as provided by Article 27 (3) of the previous Medical Service Act (negative in principle); and whether medical advertising constitutes ""referral or soliciting"" or the ""incitement"" of patients, when the act was performed by a medical personnel's employee or a third party upon the medical personnel's request (negative) [2] In a case where Gap (a doctor), Byung (CEO of defendant corporation Eul) sent emails consisting of an advertisement event concerning ophthalmic surgery to members of the website operated by Eul, and were indicted of violating the previous Medical Service Act: the case holding that defendant Gap's act of sending emails was medical advertising and does not constitute ""soliciting"" of patients, unless under unique circumstances; even if the advertising was performed by a corporation such as defendant Eul, the act does not constitute ""referral or soliciting"" of patients, or the incitement thereof; and that the judgment below which perceived otherwise and found the defendants guilty was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle and etc.

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6203 Decided September 13, 2012 [Injury.Obstruction of performance of official duties¡¤Insult]
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7377 Decided August 20, 2012[Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof (rape of a minor under 13 years of age, etc.)]

list