The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the awareness that a face-to-face medical examination was conducted, the Defendant issued a prescription after a follow-up medical examination based on the explanation of D's letter or E on behalf of D, etc., with the recognition of continuing medical examination of D.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to issue a prescription to "patient who did not directly examine".

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 17(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that no medical doctor nor doctor who directly conducted a medical examination may prepare a prescription, etc. and deliver it to the patient.

In this context, “direct” refers to “sorro” and thus, even in the case of a non-faceted examination, if a physician voluntarily conducted a medical examination, it can be deemed that a doctor directly conducted a medical examination.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1388 Decided April 11, 2013). On the other hand, the term “medical examination” means the examination of and determination on the patient’s appearance by hearing and observing the patient’s attitude. There are various methods of diagnosis, such as examination by means of literature, medical examination, diagnosis, hearing, dust, promotion, and other scientific methods.

(1) In light of the concept of medical examination and the purpose of the provision of this case to ensure objectivity and accuracy of the diagnosis and prescription, etc., in light of the concept of the diagnosis and diagnosis prior to treatment, and the purpose of the provision of this case to ensure objectivity and accuracy of the diagnosis and prescription, etc., it can be deemed that there was an act to the extent that it is possible to give a specific diagnosis, prescription, etc. on the basis of a reliable patient’s condition in light of modern medical perspective. In a case where such act is performed by telephone call only, it should be presumed that the doctor had already been aware of the patient’s characteristics or condition by face-to-face and diagnosis.

Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9607 Decided May 14, 2020