1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff in the circumstances of the instant disposition is a medical specialist in the prison, who works in the hospital B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”).

On May 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) prepared and issued a false medical certificate with respect to C on October 5, 2009; (b) issued a false medical certificate to the Plaintiff; (c) issued a disposition suspending qualification for a medical license for 15 days per month (from November 1, 2014 to December 15, 2014) in accordance with Article 66(1)3 of the former Medical Service Act (Amended by Act No. 9906, Dec. 13, 2009).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” (based on recognition), the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, based on the following facts: (a) there is no dispute; (b) the entry of the evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, based on the results of a direct examination by the Plaintiff who visited the instant hospital C; and (d) the preparation of a medical certificate with respect to C by taking account of the results of the MRI film and vision test conducted by the Plaintiff; and

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Facts of recognition

C on September 23, 2009, at the D Council members, the MIM taken the border of the deceased, and as a result, the MIM showed the view of “compact on the bones of wood, bones, etc. accompanied by the GIC ppuri disease”.

On October 5, 2009, the Plaintiff, who visited the instant hospital on October 5, 2009, placed a physical mark in the clinical presumption column, and prepared a medical certificate stating “It is deemed difficult to expect normal labor activities, such as driving, due to pain for at least one year after the end,” and written in the column of opinion on future treatment in the area of disease name.”

At the time, the Plaintiff prepared the instant diagnosis report based on C’s statement and C’s result of the inspection of MRI films and vision held by D, and did not conduct the MRI inspection for C separately before preparing the diagnosis report. At the time, the Plaintiff did not conduct the MRI inspection for C.