The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 17(1) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 14438, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same) provides that “A person, other than a doctor, dentist, or oriental medical doctor (hereinafter “doctor, etc.”) who directly conducted a medical examination or autopsy by engaging in medical service, shall not prepare a medical certificate, death certificate, certificate, or prescription (including electronic prescription) and deliver it to a patient (referring to the spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, or lineal ascendant or descendant of his/her spouse, if a patient dies) or a local public prosecutor (limited to an electronic prescription) of a public prosecutor’s office that conducts a medical examination pursuant to Article 222(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.” Article 89 of the same Act provides that “A person who violates Article 17(1) is punished.

This means that a medical certificate, death certificate, certificate, or prescription indicates the judgment of a medical person based on the result of a direct medical examination or examination of a patient by a medical doctor, etc., and is in charge of important social functions, such as proving the person's health condition, etc. and determining the civil and criminal responsibility, and thus, only a doctor, etc. who directly conducted a medical examination and conducted a postmortem examination, to ensure the accuracy and reliability thereof.

따라서 의사 등이 구 의료법 제 17조 제 1 항에 따라 직접 진찰하여야 할 환자를 진찰하지 않은 채 그 환자를 대상 자로 표시하여 진단서 ㆍ 증명서 또는 처방전을 작성 ㆍ 교 부하였다면 구 의료법 제 17조 제 1 항을 위반한 것으로 보아야 하고( 대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2011도 14690 판결, 대법원 2017. 12. 22. 선고 2014도 12608 판결 등 참조), 이는 환자가 실제 존재하지 않는 허무인( 虛無人) 인 경우에도 마찬가지이다.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant prepared a prescription seven times from April 30, 2016 to July 22, 2016 to P in the name of the father-freeO, etc.