Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Telephone-only prescription without any prior face-to-face examination
Supreme Court, May 14, 2020, 2014Do9607 (judgment)
Case name: 의료법위반[전화 통화 내용을 기초로 처방전을 작성·교부한 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a doctor wrote and handed over a prescription for specialist medicines to a person he had never met, on the strength of a telephone call alone, had he 'directly examined' that person within Article 17(1) of the former Medical Service Act?
Holding
No. The Court held that 'directly' means 'on one's own', so an examination carried out remotely by telephone may still count as direct, but 'examination' means conduct enough, from the standpoint of modern medicine, to make a specific diagnosis or prescription on a reliable state of the patient. Where that conduct rests on a telephone call alone, at a minimum it must be premised on the doctor having met and examined the patient beforehand and already knowing the patient's characteristics or condition.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
현대 의학 측면에서 보아 신뢰할 만한 환자의 상태를 토대로 특정 진단이나 처방 등을 내릴 수 있을 정도의 행위가 있어야 ‘진찰’이 이루어졌다고 볼 수 있고, 그러한 행위가 전화 통화만으로 이루어지는 경우에는 최소한 그 이전에 의사가 환자를 대면하고 진찰하여 환자의 특성이나 상태 등에 대해 이미 알고 있다는 사정 등이 전제되어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
An 'examination' can be regarded as having taken place only where an act sufficient to render a specific diagnosis or prescription on the basis of a reliable state of the patient from the perspective of modern medicine has been performed, and where such an act is conducted solely by a telephone call, it must be premised, at the minimum, that the physician had previously met and examined the patient face to face and already knew the patient's characteristics or condition and other circumstances.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울서부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
‘진찰’이란 환자의 용태를 듣고 관찰하여 병상 및 병명을 규명하고 판단하는 것으로서, 진단방법으로는 문진, 시진, 청진, 타진, 촉진 기타 각종의 과학적 방법을 써서 검사하는 등 여러 가지가 있다.
Unofficial English translation
An 'examination' refers to ascertaining and determining the condition of illness and the name of a disease by listening to and observing the patient's condition, and there are various methods of examination as diagnostic methods, including questioning, inspection, auscultation, percussion, palpation, and other scientific methods of testing.
Factors
- 현대 의학 측면에서 보아 신뢰할 만한 환자의 상태를 토대로 특정 진단이나 처방 등을 내릴 수 있을 정도의 행위가 있어야 ‘진찰’이 이루어졌다고 볼 수 있고
- 진찰이 치료에 선행하는 행위인 점
- 진단서와 처방전 등의 객관성과 정확성을 담보하고자 하는 구 의료법 제17조 제1항의 목적
- 최소한 그 이전에 의사가 환자를 대면하고 진찰하여 환자의 특성이나 상태 등에 대해 이미 알고 있다는 사정 등이 전제되어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• An 'examination' can be regarded as having taken place only where an act sufficient to render a specific diagnosis or prescription on the basis of a reliable state of the patient from the perspective of modern medicine has been performed, and
• the fact that an examination is an act preceding treatment
• the purpose of Article 17 (1) of the former Medical Service Act to secure the objectivity and accuracy of medical certificates, prescriptions, and other documents
• it must be premised, at the minimum, that the physician had previously met and examined the patient face to face and already knew the patient's characteristics or condition and other circumstances
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
현대 의학 측면에서 보아 신뢰할 만한 환자의 상태를 토대로 특정 진단이나 처방 등을 내릴 수 있을 정도의 행위가 있어야 ‘진찰’이 이루어졌다고 볼 수 있고
Unofficial English translation
An 'examination' can be regarded as having taken place only where an act sufficient to render a specific diagnosis or prescription on the basis of a reliable state of the patient from the perspective of modern medicine has been performed, and
Decisions referred to
대법원 1993. 8. 27. 선고 93도153 판결(공1993하, 2683), 대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2010도1388 판결(공2013상, 891)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does a video consultation that lets the doctor observe the patient supply enough of a reliable state for a telephone or video prescription to count as an examination?
Any later decision on remote consultation under the Medical Service Act as amended by Act No. 14220 of 29 May 2016, or on the boundary between Article 17(1) and the penalty provision in Article 89(i), would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Follows earlier decisions”
The primary reading treats the telephone-only condition as a new standard, while the independent reading treats the ruling as following existing precedent. The definition of examination is drawn from earlier case law, but the telephone condition looks new, so each reader may stress a different part.
대법원 1993. 8. 27. 선고 93도153 판결(공1993하, 2683), 대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2010도1388 판결(공2013상, 891)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does a video consultation that lets the doctor observe the patient supply enough of a reliable state for a telephone or video prescription to count as an examination?” vs Independent “How recent and extensive must the prior face-to-face examination be to support a medically reliable telephone diagnosis or prescription?”
The primary reading asks whether video consultation, which lets the doctor observe the patient, supplies a reliable enough state, while the independent reading asks how recent and extensive the prior face-to-face examination must be. Both concern prerequisites for remote prescribing but point to different unresolved points.
현대 의학 측면에서 보아 신뢰할 만한 환자의 상태를 토대로 특정 진단이나 처방 등을 내릴 수 있을 정도의 행위가 있어야 ‘진찰’이 이루어졌다고 볼 수 있고, 그러한 행위가 전화 통화만으로 이루어지는 경우에는 최소한 그 이전에 의사가 환자를 대면하고 진찰하여 환자의 특성이나 상태 등에 대해 이미 알고 있다는 사정 등이 전제되어야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Western District Court, in its judgment of 11 July 2014 (2013No1180), set aside the first-instance conviction and acquitted the defendant. It held that the defendant had directly examined the person named in the indictment, so that writing and handing over the prescription did not breach Article 17(1) of the former Medical Service Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the defendant prescribed Plutin capsules and other specialist medicines on a telephone call alone in about February 2011, had never once met or examined the person named in the indictment before that call, and did not know that person's characteristics at the time. Such conduct could not rest on a reliable state of the patient, so the defendant had not examined him, and the court below had misstated the law on direct examination in a way that affected the outcome; the judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A prescription issued after the doctor has previously met the patient in person and examined them, so that the doctor already knows the patient's characteristics or condition.
- Conduct that goes beyond a telephone call, where the Court's minimum requirement for a telephone-only encounter does not come into play.
- A case governed by the Medical Service Act as amended by Act No. 14220 of 29 May 2016, since the decision applied the earlier text.
Record verification notes
Fix the date of the prescription and search the record for any earlier face-to-face consultation with the same patient, since the Court turned on the absence of one. Then set what the doctor actually knew of the patient's condition at the time of the call against the requirement that the conduct rest on a reliable state, and confirm which version of Article 17(1) applied on that date.
From the official text
Points at issue
‘의료업에 종사하고 직접 진찰한 의사가 아니면 처방전 등을 작성하여 환자에게 교부하지 못한다’고 규정한 구 의료법 제17조 제1항에서 ‘직접’ 및 ‘진찰’의 의미 / 현대 의학 측면에서 보아 신뢰할 만한 환자의 상태를 토대로 특정 진단이나 처방 등을 내릴 수 있을 정도의 행위가 있어야 ‘진찰’이 이루어졌다고 볼 수 있고, 그러한 행위가 전화 통화만으로 이루어지는 경우에는 최소한 그 이전에 의사가 환자를 대면하고 진찰하여 환자의 특성이나 상태 등에 대해 이미 알고 있다는 사정 등이 전제되어야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The meanings of 'directly' and 'examination' in Article 17 (1) of the former Medical Service Act, which provides that 'no person other than a physician engaged in the medical service who has directly examined a patient may prepare and issue a prescription or other document to a patient' / Whether it can be regarded as an 'examination' only where an act sufficient to render a specific diagnosis or prescription on the basis of a reliable state of the patient from the perspective of modern medicine has been performed, and where such an act is conducted solely by a telephone call, it must be premised, at the minimum, that the physician had previously met and examined the patient face to face and already knew the patient's characteristics or condition and other circumstances (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
구 의료법(2016. 5. 29. 법률 제14220호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제17조 제1항은 의료업에 종사하고 직접 진찰한 의사가 아니면 처방전 등을 작성하여 환자에게 교부하지 못한다고 규정하고 있다. 여기서 ‘직접’이란 ‘스스로’를 의미하므로 전화 통화 등을 이용하여 비대면으로 이루어진 경우에도 의사가 스스로 진찰을 하였다면 직접 진찰을 한 것으로 볼 수는 있다. 한편 ‘진찰’이란 환자의 용태를 듣고 관찰하여 병상 및 병명을 규명하고 판단하는 것으로서, 진단방법으로는 문진, 시진, 청진, 타진, 촉진 기타 각종의 과학적 방법을 써서 검사하는 등 여러 가지가 있다. 이러한 진찰의 개념 및 진찰이 치료에 선행하는 행위인 점, 진단서와 처방전 등의 객관성과 정확성을 담보하고자 하는 구 의료법 제17조 제1항의 목적 등을 고려하면, 현대 의학 측면에서 보아 신뢰할 만한 환자의 상태를 토대로 특정 진단이나 처방 등을 내릴 수 있을 정도의 행위가 있어야 ‘진찰’이 이루어졌다고 볼 수 있고, 그러한 행위가 전화 통화만으로 이루어지는 경우에는 최소한 그 이전에 의사가 환자를 대면하고 진찰하여 환자의 특성이나 상태 등에 대해 이미 알고 있다는 사정 등이 전제되어야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울서부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.
Provisions referred to
구 의료법(2016. 5. 29. 법률 제14220호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조 제1항, 제89조(현행 제89조 제1호 참조)
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger