의사면허자격정지처분취소
1. All of the ancillary claims in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a surcharge of KRW 125 million for ten months, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was guilty of taking the following property in breach of trust and committing a violation of the Medical Service Act in the branch court of the Daegu District Court.
(2013 Highest 978). The Plaintiff filed an appeal, and the Daegu District Court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, but the allegation of unfair sentencing was accepted and sentenced to a fine of KRW 10 million and a surcharge of KRW 125 million and a surcharge of KRW 125.6 million to the Plaintiff.
(2013No3961). Although the Plaintiff appealed, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on July 10, 2014.
(2014Do4805). From around 1996 to around the date, Defendant B is a medical person who has been in office as the head of the hospital of the Korean Medical Center of the Daegu-gu Medical Center of the Korean Medical Corporation from the date of 1996 and is engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient at the above hospital. Defendant A is a medical person who has been in office as the head of the human mission saving team at the above hospital from July 2006 to the date, and Defendant E is a medical person who has been in office as the head of the human mission saving team at the above hospital from March 2009 and has been in office as the head of the human mission saving team at the above hospital. Defendant B is a medical person who has been in office as the head of the human mission saving team at the above hospital from July 2006 to the date and is engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient at the above hospital, and B is a medical person who is engaged in the manufacture and import of medical appliances, the representative director of the medical device sales company and the head of H business.
2. Defendant B and Defendant A’s joint criminal conduct offered at the foregoing D Hospital around February 2011 that Defendant A would not be able to receive money as a result of rebates according to the use of the personal mission Section (TKR) handled by H, and Defendant A would be able to receive money as a result of rebates.