Doctor fined 3 million won for prescribing erectile dysfunction medication to a 'fictional character' at a pharmaceutical company employee's request

(Photo by Getty Images Bank)

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that a doctor issuing a prescription under the name of a fictitious person who does not exist in reality is subject to punishment.

On the 24th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing Doctor A to a fine of 3 million won in the final appeal trial. Doctor A was charged with aiding and abetting violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and violation of the Medical Service Act.

Anesthesiologist Doctor A issued a prescription for 200 erectile dysfunction treatment pills under the name of a fictitious person at the request of pharmaceutical sales representative B in 2016. A fictitious person is a legal term referring to a person who does not exist in reality but is fabricated to appear as if they do.

B brought the prescription to a pharmacy to obtain the medicine with the intent to sell it to others. Doctor A wrote seven prescriptions in the same manner over about three months, and B obtained a total of 1,361 treatment pills. Accordingly, Doctor A was prosecuted for issuing prescriptions under a fictitious name without directly examining patients.

The trial focused on whether Doctor A’s actions violated Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the former Medical Service Act. This provision stipulates that a doctor cannot write and deliver or send a prescription without directly examining the patient, and Article 89 of the same law punishes those who violate this.

The first trial court acquitted Doctor A. The court ruled, “Even if a doctor writes a prescription without direct examination, if the prescription is not delivered to a patient, it cannot be punished,” and judged that a fictitious person does not qualify as a ‘patient’ and thus is not subject to the Medical Service Act.

On the other hand, the second trial court sentenced Doctor A to a fine of 3 million won, stating, “The recipient of the prescription and the person to whom it is delivered must be the same, and there is no reason to evaluate differently just because the patient named in the prescription is a fictitious person.”

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The court stated, “The lower court did not err in its judgment by misunderstanding the law regarding Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the former Medical Service Act,” and dismissed Doctor A’s appeal.

Meanwhile, B was fined 3 million won in the second trial for violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act by obtaining treatment drugs for the purpose of sale despite not being a pharmacy operator.