Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Issuing prescriptions for a patient never examined, fictitious or not
Supreme Court, Feb. 4, 2021, 2020Do13899 (judgment)
Case name: 의료법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a doctor, dentist or oriental medicine doctor fails to examine directly a patient whom Article 17(1) of the former Medical Act requires to be examined directly, but writes and hands over a diagnosis, certificate or prescription naming that patient as its subject, does that breach Article 17(1), and is the answer the same where the patient is a fictitious person who does not actually exist?
Holding
Yes, on both points. Article 17(1) of the former Medical Act reserves the writing and handing over of a diagnosis, autopsy report, certificate or prescription to a doctor, dentist or oriental medicine doctor who has examined or inspected the patient directly, and Article 89 punishes a breach of that provision. Where such a professional names a patient whom he or she had to examine directly but did not, and issues one of those documents naming that patient, the Article is breached, and this is so even where the patient is a fictitious person who never existed.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 의사 등이 구 의료법 제17조 제1항에 따라 직접 진찰하여야 할 환자를 진찰하지 않은 채 그 환자를 대상자로 표시하여 진단서·증명서 또는 처방전을 작성·교부하였다면 구 의료법 제17조 제1항을 위반한 것으로 보아야 하고, 이는 환자가 실제 존재하지 않는 허무인인 경우에도 마찬가지이다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, where physicians, etc. have prepared and issued a written diagnosis, written certification, or prescription, indicating as the subject thereof a patient whom they were required to examine directly under Article 17 (1) of the former Medical Service Act but did not in fact examine, they must be regarded as having violated Article 17 (1) of the former Medical Service Act, and the same holds true even where the patient is a nonexistent person who does not actually exist.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 정확성과 신뢰성을 담보하기 위하여 직접 진찰·검안한 의사 등만이 이를 작성·교부할 수 있도록 하는 데 그 취지가 있다
Unofficial English translation
the purport thereof is to ensure the accuracy and reliability thereof by allowing only physicians, etc. who have personally examined and inspected the patient to prepare and issue the same
Factors
- 구 의료법 제17조 제1항에 따라 직접 진찰하여야 할 환자를 진찰하지 않은 채
- 그 환자를 대상자로 표시하여 진단서·증명서 또는 처방전을 작성·교부하였다면
- 그 정확성과 신뢰성을 담보하기 위하여 직접 진찰·검안한 의사 등만이 이를 작성·교부할 수 있도록 하는 데 그 취지가 있다
- 환자가 실제 존재하지 않는 허무인인 경우에도 마찬가지이다
Unofficial English translation
• without examining a patient whom they were required to examine directly under Article 17 (1) of the former Medical Service Act
• if they have prepared and issued a written diagnosis, written certification, or prescription, indicating that patient as the subject thereof
• the purport thereof is to ensure the accuracy and reliability thereof by allowing only physicians, etc. who have personally examined and inspected the patient to prepare and issue the same
• the same holds true even where the patient is a nonexistent person who does not actually exist
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2011도14690 판결(공2013상, 903)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14690 decided April 11, 2013 (Gong 2013 Sang, 903)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2011도14690 판결(공2013상, 903), 대법원 2017. 12. 22. 선고 2014도12608 판결(공2018상, 366)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where one of those documents was written but never handed over or sent to anyone, does Article 17(1) of the former Medical Act still apply?
Any later decision applying Article 17(1) and Article 17-2(1) of the Medical Act in force today (this decision applied Article 17(1) as it stood before the amendment by Act No. 14438 of 20 December 2016) to conduct after that amendment would call for this entry to be read again. So would a decision treating documents written but not handed over as outside Article 17(1).
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where one of those documents was written but never handed over or sent to anyone, does Article 17(1) of the former Medical Act still apply?” vs Independent “How does a physician's mistaken belief that a fictitious patient actually exists affect criminal intent for this offense?”
The primary reading asks whether the offence applies to a document written but never delivered, while the independent reading asks how a doctor's mistaken belief that a fictitious patient exists affects criminal intent.
따라서 의사 등이 구 의료법 제17조 제1항에 따라 직접 진찰하여야 할 환자를 진찰하지 않은 채 그 환자를 대상자로 표시하여 진단서·증명서 또는 처방전을 작성·교부하였다면 구 의료법 제17조 제1항을 위반한 것으로 보아야 하고, 이는 환자가 실제 존재하지 않는 허무인인 경우에도 마찬가지이다.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 Uijeongbu District Court, in its judgment of 24 September 2020 (2019No3357), held that the defendant breached Article 17(1) of the former Medical Act by writing prescriptions seven times, between about 30 April 2016 and about 22 July 2016, in the names of fictitious persons including A and handing them over to B. The charge concerned prescriptions written in the names of people who did not exist and given to another person.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Applying its earlier decisions of 11 April 2013 (2011Do14690) and 22 December 2017 (2014Do12608), it held that Article 17(1) is breached where a doctor writes and hands over a diagnosis, certificate or prescription naming a patient whom he or she had to examine directly but did not, and that a fictitious patient makes no difference. It dismissed the appeal on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A diagnosis, certificate or prescription written after the doctor, dentist or oriental medicine doctor examined or inspected the patient directly, since the Article reserves those documents to such a professional.
- A document that is not one of the diagnosis, autopsy report, certificate or prescription covered by Article 17(1), since the holding is tied to those four documents.
- Conduct governed by Article 17(1) and Article 17-2(1) of the Medical Act as currently in force, because this decision applied the earlier version of the Act.
Record verification notes
Identify first which of the four documents each count concerns and whether the statute in force on the date of the conduct was the version before the amendment of 20 December 2016 or the current version. Then match each document with the record of whether the defendant examined the patient named in it, and note that the Court treated a fictitious name as no answer to the breach.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 의료법 제17조 제1항, 제89조의 취지 / 의사 등이 구 의료법 제17조 제1항에 따라 직접 진찰하여야 할 환자를 진찰하지 않은 채 그 환자를 대상자로 표시하여 진단서·증명서 또는 처방전을 작성·교부한 경우, 같은 조항을 위반한 것인지 여부(적극) 및 이는 환자가 실제 존재하지 않는 허무인인 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The purport of Article 17 (1) and Article 89 of the former Medical Service Act / Whether, where physicians, etc. have prepared and issued a written diagnosis, written certification, or prescription, indicating as the subject thereof a patient whom they were required to examine directly under Article 17 (1) of the former Medical Service Act but did not in fact examine, this constitutes a violation of the same provision (affirmative), and whether the same holds true even where the patient is a nonexistent person who does not actually exist (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
구 의료법(2016. 12. 20. 법률 제14438호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제17조 제1항은 ‘의료업에 종사하고 직접 진찰하거나 검안한 의사, 치과의사, 한의사(이하 ‘의사 등’이라 한다)가 아니면 진단서·검안서·증명서 또는 처방전(전자처방전을 포함한다)을 작성하여 환자(환자가 사망한 경우에는 배우자, 직계존비속 또는 배우자의 직계존속을 말한다) 또는 형사소송법 제222조 제1항에 따라 검시를 하는 지방검찰청 검사(검안서에 한한다)에게 교부하거나 발송(전자처방전에 한한다)하지 못한다.’고 규정하고, 같은 법 제89조는 제17조 제1항을 위반한 자를 처벌하고 있다. 이는 진단서·검안서·증명서 또는 처방전이 의사 등이 환자를 직접 진찰하거나 검안한 결과를 바탕으로 의료인으로서의 판단을 표시하는 것으로서 사람의 건강상태 등을 증명하고 민형사책임을 판단하는 증거가 되는 등 중요한 사회적 기능을 담당하고 있어 그 정확성과 신뢰성을 담보하기 위하여 직접 진찰·검안한 의사 등만이 이를 작성·교부할 수 있도록 하는 데 그 취지가 있다. 따라서 의사 등이 구 의료법 제17조 제1항에 따라 직접 진찰하여야 할 환자를 진찰하지 않은 채 그 환자를 대상자로 표시하여 진단서·증명서 또는 처방전을 작성·교부하였다면 구 의료법 제17조 제1항을 위반한 것으로 보아야 하고, 이는 환자가 실제 존재하지 않는 허무인인 경우에도 마찬가지이다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
구 의료법(2016. 12. 20. 법률 제14438호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조 제1항(현행 제17조 제1항, 제17조의2 제1항 참조), 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