The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 17(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that “no person, other than a doctor who engages in the business of medical treatment and directly conducted a medical examination, shall issue or send a prescription, etc. to the patient.” Article 89 of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who violates Article 17(1) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won.

The current Medical Service Act and the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act separates the medical treatment by a doctor or dentist (hereinafter “doctor, etc.”) and the preparation of medicines by a pharmacist, etc., and, even if it is deemed necessary to administer the medicines to a patient, a doctor, etc. must issue a prescription to a patient unless he/she is able to manufacture the medicines by himself/herself under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Article 18(1) of the Medical Service Act). A pharmacist cannot, in principle, prepare the medicines without a prescription (Article 23(3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act), and a pharmacist is prohibited from preparing the medicines without any consent of a doctor, etc. (Articles 26 and 27 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act). The treatment of a patient through division or collaboration between the above doctor, etc. and the pharmacist, etc. is premised on the identity of the patient who received the medical treatment by a doctor, etc. and the identity of the patient who becomes the other party to the preparation of medicines by a doctor, etc., and thus, it is essential to ensure the identity of the patient through the first prescription prepared by a doctor, etc.

Therefore, the other party who should directly examine the patient pursuant to Article 17 (1) of the Medical Service Act refers to the person who is entered as the patient in the prescription, and the doctor, etc. enters the prescription as the patient.