의료법 위반행위와 사기죄의 성립 여부
The Violation of Medical Service Law and the Possibility of Fraud
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
By Medical Service Law(below, abbr as ‘Law’), the medical institutions should be established and run by ‘the doctors or the qualified persons’(below, abbr as ‘doctors’), who are permitted by the related laws. And there is a case such as non-doctors establish the institutions, hire doctors and run the institutions, or non-doctors and doctors co-establish the institutions and run the institutions. This kind of act is treated as violations under Law. When, in their running the institutions, doctors treat the patients, which means doctors give the patients the medical care in place of National Health Insurance Service(below, abbr as NHIS), doctors ask the costs of the medical care to NHIS. If the costs of the medical treatment(the medical care) do not exist or are exaggerated, the act of asking the costs will constitute Fraud. But if doctors in such institutions described above treat the patients fairly, and then ask NHIS the costs with no falsity or exaggeration, does that act constitute Fraud? This kind of act has not been treated as Fraud until 2013. But from the second half of 2013, this kind of act has been prosecuted as Fraud. Is that prosecution right? Is it guilty as Fraud? Medical treatment has a broad effecion on the health and welfare of people, so business mind should be excluded from medical treatment. And Law has regulations on the qualification of establishing the institutions to prevent the substantial distortion of medical treatment. But if doctors’ treatment is true, which means there is no falsity or exaggeration in medical treatment, then there can not exist the substantial distortion. And the article 57 ① of Law regulates ‘trick or the other undue method’, but I think this kind of act does not conform to the article 57 ① of Law. And even if this kind of act conforms to the article 57 ① of Law, it does not mean that it is Fraud. Because Fraud has the strong character of mala in se, transcendentally the act of Fraud should be evaluated anti-social and immoral. But this kind of act can not be assessed anti-social and immoral transcendentally. And the criminal control on this kind of act can not be the fundamental measure to prevent the financial aggravation of NHIS. And because this kind of act is treated as violations under Law, if the punishment of Fraud is added, it could violate the principle of proportion or principle of subsidiarity.
Abstract
By Medical Service Law(below, abbr as ‘Law’), the medical institutions should be established and run by ‘the doctors or the qualified persons’(below, abbr as ‘doctors’), who are permitted by the related laws. And there is a case such as non-doctors establish the institutions, hire doctors and run the institutions, or non-doctors and doctors co-establish the institutions and run the institutions. This kind of act is treated as violations under Law. When, in their running the institutions, doctors treat the patients, which means doctors give the patients the medical care in place of National Health Insurance Service(below, abbr as NHIS), doctors ask the costs of the medical care to NHIS. If the costs of the medical treatment(the medical care) do not exist or are exaggerated, the act of asking the costs will constitute Fraud. But if doctors in such institutions described above treat the patients fairly, and then ask NHIS the costs with no falsity or exaggeration, does that act constitute Fraud? This kind of act has not been treated as Fraud until 2013. But from the second half of 2013, this kind of act has been prosecuted as Fraud. Is that prosecution right? Is it guilty as Fraud? Medical treatment has a broad effecion on the health and welfare of people, so business mind should be excluded from medical treatment. And Law has regulations on the qualification of establishing the institutions to prevent the substantial distortion of medical treatment. But if doctors’ treatment is true, which means there is no falsity or exaggeration in medical treatment, then there can not exist the substantial distortion. And the article 57 ① of Law regulates ‘trick or the other undue method’, but I think this kind of act does not conform to the article 57 ① of Law. And even if this kind of act conforms to the article 57 ① of Law, it does not mean that it is Fraud. Because Fraud has the strong character of mala in se, transcendentally the act of Fraud should be evaluated anti-social and immoral. But this kind of act can not be assessed anti-social and immoral transcendentally. And the criminal control on this kind of act can not be the fundamental measure to prevent the financial aggravation of NHIS. And because this kind of act is treated as violations under Law, if the punishment of Fraud is added, it could violate the principle of proportion or principle of subsidiarity.
참고문헌 (22)
- "국민건강보험법 해설", 국민건강보험, ~ (2011)
- 국민건강보험법 일부개정법률안 검토보고, "김대현", ~ (2014)
- 김계현, "국민건강보험법상 요양급여비용 환수 및 처벌 관련 규정의 문제점과 개선방안", 법학연구, 20(2), pp.231~266 (2009), 법학연구소
- 김성돈, "판례변경판결의 소급효", 제106차 형사실무연구회 발표문 (2013), 대법원
- 김정중, "국민건강보험법상 ‘임의 비급여 진료행위’의 부당성", 사법, 1(21), pp.351~390 (2012), 사법발전재단
- 김종민, "조세포탈범의 형사처벌과 관련한 제문제", 사법논집 (2007)
- 朴達鉉, "刑法上 補充性原則에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.1997
- 신동운, "2013년 분야별 중요판례분석", 2014. 4. 17.자 법률신문, ~ (2014)
- 안대희, "조세형사법-조세포탈의 성립과 처벌" (2005), 법문사
- 이나미, "신경정신과 전문의의 時論 ‘의료보험을 수술대 올려라", 1999. 12. 30.자 경향신문, ~ (1999)
- 이상돈, "형법의 근대성과 대화이론" (1994), 홍문사
- 이용식, "형법에 있어서 인권보호-형법의 체계론적 검토를 중심으로-", 형사정책, 14(1), pp.8~301 (2002), 한국형사정책학회
- 전현희, "대한민국 국민건강보험제도의 과거, 현재 그리고 미", 의료법학, 5(1) (2004)
- 정성근, "형법각론" (2006), 삼화원
- 정홍기, "국민건강보험법 제3판" (2005), 한국법제연구원
- , 2006
- 최규진, "국민건강보험법 제52조 제1항의 해석에 관한 판례 동향", 법조, 60(1), pp.223~265 (2011), 법조협회
- 최봉석, "행정제재와 형벌의 관계에 관한 소고", 법제연구, (40), pp.271~301 (2011), 한국법제연구원
- Sunstein Cass, "왜 사회에는 이견이 필요한가?" (2009), 후마니타스
- Darryl Robinson, "The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law", Leiden Journal of International Law, 21 (2008)
