1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the disposition is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The summary of the instant member is using an electronic set program produced by the hospital and computer corporation, and even if the intent to print out the prescription is different from the intent to write the prescription, the prescription stating the name of the output and the signature is printed in the “name of the wife” of the prescription, even if the intent to print out the prescription does not change the content of the prescription.

D The medical examination and prescription of E and F were conducted by the Plaintiff, and only the Plaintiff simply printed out and issued a prescription written by D.

The Plaintiff did not have written the content of the prescription, and the Plaintiff’s signature printed on the prescription of this case did not have signed by the Plaintiff, but automatically inserted the Plaintiff’s signature image file contained in the electronic set program at the time of printing out, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff written the prescription on the ground that it does not have any effect as a signature.

Therefore, the grounds for the disposition of this case are not recognized.

Even if the Plaintiff’s domestic act constitutes the preparation of a prescription, E.F., if delay of the use of a medicine as stated in the prescription, the health is seriously endangered, and the risk of excessive behavior increases due to excessive behavior disorder. If D is too serious and there is no time to output the prescription, it is only that the Plaintiff printed out the prescription instead of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes “a case where another doctor working for the same medical institution issues a prescription in accordance with the medical records, etc., because the doctor who directly examined the patient cannot deliver the medical certificate due to any inevitable reason” under Article 17(1) proviso of the former Medical Service Act.

Article 66(1) of the Medical Service Act provides suspension of qualification for medical personnel, etc., and subparagraph 3 thereof.