Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Den12/218P
Practitioner: Ryan Woongki Kim
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Legislation – breach of Crimes Act 1961

Following a conviction of using a document for pecuniary advantage namely a student allowance which he was not entitled


Legislation - breach of Education Act 1989

Following a conviction of dishonestly obtaining a student allowance which he was not entitled


Legislation – breach of Crimes Act 1961

Dishonest use of a document with intent of obtaining percuniary gain

Authority - Lied/misled

Misled authority


Additional Orders:

Appeal Order:


Full Decision 488Den12218P.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:


The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) laid a charge against Ryan Woongki Kim, dentist of Dunedin (the Dentist) that alleged he had been convicted of offences that reflected adversely on his fitness to practice.  On 22 July 2011 the Dentist was convicted in the District Court of three charges under section 228 of the Crimes Act 1961 and one charge under section 307AA(2) of the Education Act 1989.

The four convictions related to dishonestly obtaining a student allowance to which he was not entitled from: 26 January 2009 to 3 January 2010; 18 January 2010 to 26 December 2010; and 10 January 2011 to 6 February 2011. The Dentist received a total payment of $23,253.27 of allowances to which he was not entitled.  In the District Court, the Dentist pleaded guilty to the four charges and he was sentenced to 100 hours community work.


The Tribunal found the charge was established.

At the time the charge was laid and at the time of the Tribunal hearing, the Dentist was no longer on the register as a dentist in New Zealand.  The PCC submitted that despite this the Tribunal still had jurisdiction to hear the charge under section 5(2) and 18(1) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (HPCA Act).  The Tribunal accepted the PCC's submission and concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the matter.


When considering penalty, the Tribunal could not cancel or suspend the Dentist's registration, as he was no longer registered in New Zealand.  However, the Tribunal concluded that had the Dentist's name been still on the register it would have ordered that the Dentist's registration be suspended for nine months.

The Tribunal ordered that should the Dentist seek to practice as an oral health practitioner in New Zealand in the future, he do so only in accordance with the following conditions:

  1. That he practice under the supervision of a person approved by the Dental Council for 12 months, such costs to be paid by the Dentist; and
  2. That he provide a certificate of good standing from the environment in which he had been practising prior to his application for registration and prior to his commencement of practice, to the satisfaction of the Dental Council, and he deal with such matters the Dental Council may require concerning his practice in that environment.

The Tribunal further ordered that the Dentist be censured, and he pay $10,000 costs.

The Tribunal directed that the decision and a summary of the decision be published.