The part of the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Medical Service Act against the defendant shall be reversed.

. against the Defendant.

1. The non-guilty part of the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the scope of the judgment of the court (the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act among the part against the defendant of the judgment of the court below) is confirmed by the failure of the defendant and the prosecutor to file an appeal within the period of appeal (the part against the defendant of the judgment of the court below was appealed without specifying the scope of appeal) (the appeal against the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court prior to remand is effective only for the guilty part of the judgment prior to remand since there is no benefit of appeal against the defendant), and the judgment of the court prior to remand was reversed by the Supreme Court and remanded only

2. As to the violation of the Medical Service Act among the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant in the summary of the grounds for appeal, the case where the doctor does not directly face with the patient at the time of “direct diagnosis” under Article 17(1) of the Medical Service Act, but the doctor provides medical treatment by telephone or other communications media, etc., it should be interpreted that it includes “the case.” The defendant provided medical treatment directly to the patient at least once at the time of issuing a prescription, and issued a prescription after ascertaining the patient’s clothes and health condition through telephone, and ascertaining the patient’s condition, and then issued the prescription. Thus, the above act does not constitute a violation of Article 17(1) of the Medical Service Act, although it does not constitute a violation of Article 17(1) of the same Act, the court below

3. No medical doctor nor doctor who directly conducted a medical examination of a violation of the Medical Service Act among the facts charged in the instant case may prepare a prescription and deliver it to the patient.

On January 4, 2006, the Defendant: (a) at the “M hospital” of the third floor of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Building, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul; (b) did not directly examine patients’O; and (c) prepared a prescription in its name and received the delegation from the patient.