1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The details and details of the disposition are that the Plaintiff acquired a doctor’s license and worked in the “C Hospital” located in the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant hospital.” On September 3, 2015, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff “a medical prescription without directly examining the patient, issued a false medical record, and confirmed the fact that he/she was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office,” based on Articles 17(1), 22(3), and 66 of the Medical Procedure Act, “a disposition of suspension of qualification for a doctor (from December 1, 2015 to January 7, 2016).”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). . [This case's disposition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the plaintiff's argument purport of the whole argument as to the purport of the whole oral argument is as follows: D, together with other people, had the hospital of this case receive medical treatment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff directly conducted a medical examination of the patients who were within the hospital of this case and issued a prescription to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not prepare medical records or issue a prescription to the plaintiff.

Even if the Plaintiff’s act of violation is acknowledged, considering that the Plaintiff did not gain otherwise, and that the Plaintiff could not maintain his livelihood between the month during which the instant disposition was taken, and thus, gave a great impact on his livelihood, the instant disposition is deemed to have excessively been affected by the Plaintiff compared to the public interest to be achieved by it, and thus, it was abused and abused discretionary power.

Judgment

For the following reasons, the instant disposition is lawful.

It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

In fact, according to the medical records of the instant hospital, the Plaintiff stated as follows: (a) around 08:21:51 on June 20, 2012; (b) around 08:22:31; (c) providing medical treatment to F; and (d) prescribing ethyl 180mgs of 10mgs; (b) G around 08:05:45 on July 6, 2012; (c) around 08:05:5:59; (d) E; (e) around 08:06:28; and (e) providing medical treatment to F at around 00msgs of ethyl 180ms.

D In the relevant criminal case, D.