의료법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant directly conducted a medical examination of F on July 15, 201, prescribed F in F exemption from revenues, and issued F prescription to E, which was the F’s agent, three times thereafter. Although F did not directly examine the facts charged, the Defendant did not prepare a prescription in the name of F and issued it to E, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below: ① the witness F of the court below stated to the effect that “self-defense did not have any fact receiving a medical examination from the defendant, need not be exempted; ② the witness E of the court below stated to the effect that “self-defense did not have any knowledge of the DNA members operated by the defendant” (the trial record 28,29 pages); ② the witness E of the court below stated to the effect that “the defendant, on July 15, 2011, prescribed that he would have no prescription for the defendant, due to the F.I.D.’s birth, and that the defendant’s defect did not have any number of exemptions under the F.F. 1’s name. F did not receive a medical examination from the defendant, and that the defendant did not directly appear to have received any exemption from the medical record (the trial record 36 through 38), but the above defendant did not have any false testimony on the ground that he did not directly issued the E.I.D.’s medical record on July 15, 2014).”