In June 26, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of suspending qualification for doctor’s license issued to the Plaintiff is revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. From May 2010 to February 2014, the Plaintiff is a doctor who served at the 442 level of learning from the medical corporation Sungsung Medical Foundation located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, as the bankruptcy of Gangnam-gu, and from March 2014 to November 2016 at the Seocho-gu, Seoul, as the Seocho-gu, in Seoul, as the Seocho-gu Seocho-gu, in the amount of KRW 254 (hereinafter referred to as “the members of learning from the Medical Corporation Sungsung Medical Foundation”), together with the members of learning from the Medical Corporation Sungsung Medical Foundation (hereinafter “each member of this case”).

B. On June 26, 2017, the Defendant prepared a false medical record on the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff provided medical treatment to B at the Dogwon on April 16, 2012, and prescribed a siren for a siren injection; (b) as if the Plaintiff provided medical treatment, the Plaintiff entered the content thereof in C’s medical record and from that time up to March 17, 2014; and (c) entered the content of the instant medical examination and treatment in C, D, E, etc.; or (d) written a false medical record on the part of each of the instant members from March 17, 2014; (b) the Plaintiff directly provided medical treatment to B from March 29, 2012 to September 4, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant period”); and (c) prepared and issued a prescription (including injection of injection) written by the Plaintiff as a patient (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (d) based on Article 16 subparag. 15, 2016 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 2016(hereinafter referred to “instant”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not prepare a prescription under Article 17(1) of the former Medical Service Act after treating B, in the name of C, or deliver and deliver the prescription. Since the instant disposition grounds are not acknowledged, the instant disposition is unlawful. 2) Even if the instant disposition grounds are acknowledged, the instant disposition does not take into account the grounds for voluntary mitigation.