Specialist Lending Name to Office-Manager Hospital... Court Rules "License Cancellation Lawful"

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] A medical specialist who was employed at a so-called 'office manager hospital' and lent his name under suspicion has lost in the first trial after filing an administrative lawsuit against the revocation of his medical license, which was confirmed as a suspended sentence.

According to the legal community on the 26th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 12 (Chief Judge Yongseok Jeong) ruled against anesthesiology and pain medicine specialist A in the lawsuit filed against the Minister of Health and Welfare seeking cancellation of the 'medical license revocation.' The court stated, "The criminal act of the plaintiff, which was recognized as guilty in the criminal judgment, corresponds to the disqualification grounds stipulated in the Medical Service Act," and "The plaintiff's claim to cancel the revocation of the medical license is dismissed."

A was prosecuted for violating the Medical Service Act and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (fraud), and in 2019, the Supreme Court confirmed a suspended sentence (1 year and 6 months imprisonment with 2 years probation). He was found guilty of lending his name to an office manager without medical qualifications to help open a hospital. After the judgment was finalized, the Ministry of Health and Welfare revoked A's medical license in April last year, stating that disqualification grounds under the Medical Service Act had occurred. A filed an administrative lawsuit against this disposition.

In court, A challenged the Medical Service Act provision that was the basis for the license revocation. Article 8, Clause 4 of the former Medical Service Act stipulates disqualification for "those who have been sentenced to imprisonment or heavier punishment and whose execution of the sentence has not been completed or has not been confirmed as not to be executed." A argued that the wording does not include "those who have been sentenced to a suspended sentence."

The court rejected this argument, citing precedents from the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. In an April ruling last year, the Constitutional Court stated, "The wording 'sentenced to imprisonment or heavier punishment' cannot be narrowly interpreted to mean only actual imprisonment," and "The Medical Service Act applies even when a suspended sentence is imposed." The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that "it is reasonable to consider that disqualification grounds under the Medical Service Act include 'those who have been sentenced to a suspended sentence.'"

A also argued that fraud under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes does not constitute disqualification for medical qualifications under the Medical Service Act. He claimed, "If only the Medical Service Act violation had been judged, I might have been sentenced to a fine," and "The suspended sentence resulted from being punished as a concurrent offender with other crimes." The court dismissed this claim as well, stating, "The claim that a fine would have been imposed if only the Medical Service Act violation had been tried is hypothetical," and "The act of violating the Medical Service Act alone constitutes disqualification for medical qualifications under the Medical Service Act."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.