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 establishing and operating the “C Council member” (hereinafter “instant Council member”) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

A commission of the instant member was conducted on January 28, 2016 by examining E and F around January 28, 2016, and entering the prescription contents for E and F into the prescription using an electronic set program.

D. Around the same day, the Plaintiff was not a member of the instant Council. On the same day, the Plaintiff printed out a prescription, which was signed by D, to the electronic set program on the same day, and issued it to E and F. The Plaintiff’s name and signature, and the “license number” number is indicated in the “name of the host bank” of the said prescription.

On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment on the ground of a violation of the Medical Service Act, which stated that “D provided medical treatment to F and E on January 28, 2016, but the Plaintiff, who did not directly examine, prepared and issued a prescription to him/her on the same day.”

On March 21, 2017, the Defendant issued a prescription without directly examining E and F (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff issued a prescription without directly examining E and F,” and accordingly, imposed a disposition of suspending qualification for one month based on Articles 17(1) and 66(1)10 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 1420, May 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Medical Service Act”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3-12, Eul evidence 3, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings is using an electronic set program produced by hospital and computer corporation. The above program is printed out in the "name of the room" of the prescription, even if the doctor who printed out the prescription does not change the content of the prescription when the doctor who printed out the prescription is different from the doctor who written the prescription.

D The medical examination of E and F was conducted by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff merely simply printed out the prescription written by D.