A. Whether it constitutes an act of unlicensed medical treatment where an employee of one medical doctor provided symptoms to a patient during the absence of an oriental medical doctor (affirmative)

B. The case holding that the disposition of an oriental medical doctor's license for an employee's act under the above "A" which has suspended for three months cannot be deemed to have exceeded or abused the scope of discretion

(a) If a medical doctor’s employee, unless he/she is qualified, has prepared 10 additional materials to a patient suffering from a disguised disease by asking an open symptoms to him/her during the absence of an oriental medical doctor, then the relevant employee is deemed to have performed medical practice unless he/she is a medical person, even though he/she prepared medicines by mixing them as stated in a prescription book prepared by the oriental medical doctor who was kept in his/her normal sense;

B. The case holding that even if an employee under the above "A" was prepared and sold by mixing herb drugs according to long-term practice, it cannot be deemed that the license of an oriental medical doctor's license for a period of three months has exceeded or abused the scope of discretion.

(b)Article 25(b) of the Medical Service Act, Article 53 of the same Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 77Do3156 delivered on September 26, 1978 (Gong1978, 11097) 80Do2974 delivered on December 22, 1981 (Gong1982, 234) 87Do840 delivered on December 26, 1989 (Gong190,554)

Plaintiff’s Attorney Seo-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Minister of Health and Welfare

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu1006 delivered on November 6, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The court below acknowledged that the non-party 1, who is an employee of the plaintiff's oriental medical doctor, presented an open symptoms to the patient who complained of a disguised disease in the plaintiff's absence, and made a preparation of 10 joints of things. Thus, even if the non-party 1, who is an oriental medical doctor, prepares medicines mixed with drug materials as stated in the prescription book prepared by the plaintiff who is a oriental medical doctor in his usual meeting, it is obvious that the non-party 1 constitutes a case where the non-party 1 et al. was engaged in medical acts because the non-party 1's non-party's non-party 1, who is an employee of the plaintiff's oriental medical doctor, and therefore, it is obvious that the non-party 1, who is an oriental medical doctor, was engaged in medical acts because the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party's non-party 1's medical doctor's request.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

If the facts are as determined by the court below, even if non-party 1 prepared and sold herb drugs in combination with the above-mentioned herb drugs, such as the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the court below's decision that held that the disposition of this case, which the defendant suspended the plaintiff's license for an oriental medical doctor for three months, cannot be deemed as a deviation from or abuse of the scope of discretion. Thus, we cannot accept the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)