일반인의 응급의료행위에 대한 형사책임 - 응급의료법 제5조의2 개정방안을 중심으로 -

Abstract

Emergency Medical Act is prescribed to protect the life and health of the first-aid patients in order for people to receive the quick and appropriate emergency medical service in the emergency medical situations. Ordinary people are given an obligation of report and cooperation to first-aid patients in accordance with the Emergency Medical Service Act. This act is also proscribed to give emergency medical service to a critical first-aid patients which the life of people is in danger, to do not take civil and criminal liability to injury, and to mitigate and remit the criminal liability to death, in case of not having intention or big mistake, even if property damage, injure, and death have occurred in connection with emergency medical service. This provision needs to force the obligation of rescue in order to protect the benefit of nation, society and individual legally. On the contrary, it is prescribed that ordinary person who gives emergency medical service in good faith can be taken the criminal liability. This point is a problem raised of this act. Emergency medical service doers in good faith do not take the criminal liability to injury in the case of not having intention or big mistake, even if he/she can be guilty. He/she should mitigate and remit the criminal liability to death of first-aid patients as well. If not, emergency medical service of ordinary people can be withered by this exemption clause because of being contrary to national policy for protecting the life of people. So this exemption clause should be revised in order to make the purpose enacted of this act accord with the content of this act. The reason is as follows: If emergency medical service in good faith can constitute crimes, even if there are some mistake, tender-hearted mind to help first-aid patient will be reduced. Furthermore, ordinary people can be free mentally much more to be not permitted illegality at the first step than to mitigate and remit penalty according the arbitrary decision of a judge in the stage of assessment of a case.