[의사면허취소처분취소][집28(1)행,4;공1980.3.15.(628),12597]
Cases where a criminal judgment adopted as evidence of fact-finding has been changed from the appellate court and grounds for retrial
Where a criminal conviction adopted as evidence for fact-finding becomes final and conclusive in the appellate court, the court which rendered the judgment, as a matter of course, is not bound by the above criminal judgment and has rendered the judgment, but could affect the fact-finding of the above judgment if the judgment was adopted as evidence in fact-finding of the above judgment, and thus, it constitutes grounds for retrial.
Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 64Da1377 Decided January 28, 1965
[Judgment of the court below]
The Minister of Health and Welfare shall grant both films to litigation performers.
Seoul High Court Decision 77No6 delivered on January 17, 1979
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in the case of the administrative judgment which is the subject of this case, the plaintiff is found to be not guilty and not guilty in the appellate court which was adopted as evidence for fact finding that the plaintiff did not have a qualification for oriental medicine doctor under the Act on Special Measures (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures"), such as attempted crime and welfare, etc., which is the subject of this case, and the judgment was adopted as evidence for fact finding that the plaintiff has a qualification for oriental medicine doctor under the above Special Measures, and in this case, the plaintiff was revoked and confirmed not guilty. In this case, even though the court which rendered the judgment which is the subject of new trial is bound by the above criminal judgment, the judgment was adopted as evidence in fact finding, and it could affect the fact finding of the above judgment which is the subject of new trial, and the plaintiff constitutes grounds for new trial under Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the plaintiff did not have a qualification for oriental medicine doctor under the above Special Measures, and thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's above disposition was not justified and justified in the court below's decision.
Therefore, this case's appeal is without merit, and therefore, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 400, 395, and 384 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act as to the bearing of litigation costs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)