의료법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Article 17(1) of the previous Medical Service Act and Article 17(1) of the previous Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 9386 of Jan. 30, 2009) provide that "no medical doctor nor doctor who directly conducted a medical examination, nor a doctor who directly conducted a medical examination, shall issue a certificate of request for examination or prescription (hereinafter referred to as "medical prescription, etc.") to the patient" (hereinafter collectively referred to as "instant provision"), and in light of the principle of no punishment without the law, the method of systematic and logical interpretation of penal law, the system and revision of the Medical Service Act, the legislative intent and purpose of the instant provision, etc., it is reasonable to interpret the instant provision as not a provision prohibiting the issuance of prescription, etc. without self-examination, but not a provision prohibiting the general public from conducting a face-to-face medical examination or issuing prescription without sufficient medical examination. Therefore, in particular, the principle of no punishment without the law of no punishment without the law and the principle of no punishment without the law of no punishment without the law.
(2) The court below convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged that the Defendant violated the instant provision by preparing and delivering a prescription slip with the patient only by telephone call with the patient without direct examination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1388, Apr. 11, 2013). However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of no punishment without law, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.
Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating