1. The disposition suspending qualification of a doctor’s license rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on April 11, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a major of sexual surgery, served as the director general of the sexual surgery and the bureau at the “C Hospital” located in the Yongsan-gu Busan Metropolitan City B (hereinafter “instant hospital”) from August 2013 to August 2014, 2014.

D is a person who served as a business employee at the “F Hospital” located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul from July 1, 2013 to June 2014.

B. On August 14, 2017, the prosecutor in charge of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office rendered a decision to suspend indictment against the Plaintiff’s suspected violation of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “decision to suspend indictment”).

The name of a crime: A person who violated the Medical Service Act and a person suspected of being in breach of trust (Plaintiff) is currently serving in G Hospital as a public health doctor with the intention of obtaining a license from a medical professional in sexual surgery, and has served as a sexual extracurricular medicine at the instant hospital from March 2, 2011 to February 2015.

The suspect (Plaintiff) received illegal solicitation from D of the F Hospital that "on the part of sending patients who need an emergency operation," and introduced patients requiring an emergency operation to F Hospital, and received 6.1 million won from April 22, 2014 to October 1, 2016, for profit-making purposes, such as receiving 6.1 million won in total from 23 times to 23 times from April 22, 2014.

Accordingly, the suspect (Plaintiff) received illegal solicitation to introduce patients for the purpose of profit-making as above, and received financial benefits equivalent to the above amount.

Reasons for non-prosecution - Part of the facts charged (attached Form 1 / No. 1, No. 2) of the written opinion prepared by the judicial police officer is recognized.

- There are reasons to take into account such as the fact that the suspect (the plaintiff) has no same power, that the suspect (the plaintiff) served as the Director General and led to the crime, that the amount received by the suspect (the plaintiff) is relatively minor as a total of 600,000 won, and that the suspect (the plaintiff) is in profoundly against the suspect (the plaintiff).

-.