의사면허자격정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, as a doctor, operated “B” (hereinafter “instant member”) from May 8, 2014 to May 2016.
On May 22, 2014 and June 20 of the same year, the Plaintiff prepared a prescription to C without examining C, and then issued it to D.
B. On June 29, 2016, the affiliated branch office of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition of suspending prosecution on the suspected violation of the Medical Service Act as follows by the Plaintiff.
C. The Defendant issued a one-month disposition of qualification suspension against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 17(1) of the former Medical Service Act (Amended by Act No. 14220, May 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) as the foregoing charged facts, pursuant to Article 66(1)10 of the Medical Service Act, Article 4 and [Attachment Table] subparagraph 2(a) [Attachment Table] of the Rules on Administrative Measures Concerning Medical Services, as to the Plaintiff’s violation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[The facts without dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted 1) 1’s assertion that the Plaintiff took over the instant member from E on May 8, 2014, and operated the instant member from around that time. As a result of confirming the medical records of D and C, D and C confirmed that the Plaintiff had been provided treatment before the instant member, and that the Plaintiff had been provided with the exemption of D0,000 won during the consecutive period of time. As such, the Plaintiff was given the same prescription to C according to the E’s medical records directly diagnosed C, it is permissible pursuant to the proviso of Article 17(1) of the former Medical Service Act, even if the Plaintiff violated Article 17(1) of the former Medical Service Act, even if the Plaintiff violated the former Medical Service Act, the Plaintiff’s act of acting at the instant member twice more than the number of times of the Plaintiff’s acting at the instant member, but the Defendant’s suspension of qualifications and suspension of qualifications for the same period of time as F and E one month.