Doctor Given Probation Confirmed for Involving Medical Device Salesperson in Erectile Dysfunction Surgery

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A urologist who involved a medical device sales company employee in surgeries on the condition of using a specific product for erectile dysfunction surgery has been sentenced to probation.

On the 27th, the Supreme Court Division 2 (Presiding Justice Noh Jeonghee) announced that it upheld the original sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment with 3 years probation and a fine of 5 million KRW for urologist A, who was indicted for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (illegal medical practitioner) and the Medical Service Act.

A was tried on charges of allowing employee B of a medical device sales company to participate in surgeries while performing implant surgeries for erectile dysfunction patients in Incheon from 2015 to 2016, on the condition of using a specific product. It was investigated that B performed medical acts seven times, such as holding and spreading the surgical site using surgical instruments.

Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the current Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes stipulates that "If a person who is not a doctor performs medical acts as a business for profit, they shall be punished by life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 2 years, and a fine of not less than 1 million KRW and not more than 10 million KRW shall be imposed together."

In court, A’s side argued, "B was engaged in 'medical device sales' as a business, not 'medical acts' as a business." They claimed that B’s actions were merely assisting medical treatment and were not acts for profit, so they should not be subject to punishment under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

However, the first and second trials found A guilty. The first trial court stated, "It is difficult to consider B’s actions as merely preparing and inspecting surgical instruments," adding, "Since B, as a salesperson, repeatedly performed such acts in several urology clinics, the profit motive is sufficiently recognized."

The second trial court also emphasized, "If medical acts are performed repeatedly and continuously with the intention to do so, even a single act qualifies as 'medical acts performed as a business.' B repeatedly participated in surgeries using specific products at A’s hospital to promote sales."

It further stated, "Considering that B performed medical acts under A’s instructions and that each company seemed to have tacitly allowed such sales activities, it is reasonable to view that A had B participate in surgeries as receiving labor from an employee of a medical device sales company."

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The court dismissed A’s appeal, stating, "There is no error in the legal interpretation regarding 'medical acts' under Article 27 of the Medical Service Act, 'medical acts,' 'profit motive,' and 'acts performed as a business' under Article 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.