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 is a doctor who jointly establishes and operates C Council Members in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant Council Members”) with D.
B. On November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff used narcotics, etc. for which the use period had elapsed from around December 20, 2015 to May 20, 2016 (by November 28, 2015), such as injection to 15 patients of the non-chchlolidine ingredients of narcotics, etc. (hereinafter “instant act”), was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million by the Seoul Northern District Court (No. 2016Gadan4285), and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is, on the criminal facts.
C. Accordingly, around September 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition suspending qualification for one-month medical license based on Article 66(1)1 of the Medical Service Act and Article 32(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act on the ground that the instant act constitutes “in the event of non- moral diagnosis and treatment” to the Plaintiff.
2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 66(1)1 of the Medical Service Act provides that the Defendant may suspend his/her license by using an indefinite concept that “when he/she severely injures the dignity of a medical person,” and Article 66(2) of the same Act delegates the scope of his/her act to a Presidential Decree without stipulating an example as to whether a certain act seriously undermines the dignity of a medical person. Accordingly, Article 32(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act violated the principle of clarity and the prohibition of comprehensive delegation by delegated the scope of the act. Accordingly, Article 32(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act violates the principle of clarity by using an ambiguous concept of “non- moral treatment” as one of the above acts. (2) The Plaintiff’s use of the injection amount of narcotics, etc. ingredients for which the use period has elapsed for 15 patients is not intentional, but was subject to administrative disposition following the violation