I. Keywords: 
Administrative and public security administrative penalty disputes, procedural violations, and revocation. 
II. Key Points for Adjudication: 
This case constitutes an administrative dispute. The first step is to examine the legal basis for the administrative authority’s jurisdiction and the basis for imposing the penalty. In this case, the facts involved are unclear and the evidence is insufficient. Consequently, the administrative penalty decision made by the public security organ violates the statutory procedures, and the trial of the case has significantly exceeded the prescribed time limit, thus contravening mandatory legal provisions. Therefore, the administrative penalty decision should be revoked. 
III. Basic Facts of the Case: 
The plaintiff is a physician at the First Hospital of Medical University, while the third parties, Yu A and Yu B, are family members of the patient. On the evening of October 31, 2015, while Zhang was on duty, Yu A and Yu B became dissatisfied with Zhang’s responses and engaged in an argument. As Zhang attempted to leave, Yu A and Yu B blocked his way, prompting Zhang to push them aside. During the ensuing altercation, Yu A and Yu B fell to the ground one after another. After the police were called, a local police station took Zhang, Yu A, Yu B, and Wang Moumou—among others—into custody for questioning and investigation. Notably, Wang Moumou, who served as a witness, was himself a party involved in the dispute. According to a forensic assessment, the injuries sustained by Yu A and Yu B were both classified as minor injuries. Following the issuance of the assessment report, the police station failed to deliver the report to Zhang in writing; instead, they only informed him orally. Zhang immediately requested a re-assessment, but no re-assessment was ever conducted. Furthermore, the public security authorities did not provide any written explanation regarding this matter. From the time the incident occurred in 2015 until the penalty decision was made in July 2018, the case dragged on for an excessively long period.

IV. Ruling: 
1. Revoke the Administrative Penalty Decision No. [2018]1116 issued by the police station of a certain sub-bureau of the Shenyang Public Security Bureau, as well as the Administrative Review Decision No. [2018]003 issued by the same sub-bureau of the Shenyang Public Security Bureau. 
2. The defendant, a certain sub-bureau of the Shenyang Public Security Bureau, is ordered to reissue its administrative act within thirty days after this judgment becomes legally effective. 
V. Rationale for the Ruling: 
1. Regarding the issue of factual findings in this case: With regard to the facts established by the defendant, a certain police station, apart from the statements and written accounts provided by the third party, the only evidence available is the statement obtained from witness Wang Moumou. However, as a party involved in the dispute at hand, Wang Moumou cannot objectively reconstruct the actual circumstances of the scene, and there is no other objective evidence to corroborate his testimony. Therefore, the finding by the defendant, the certain police station, that “the plaintiff Zhang Mou pushed the third party Yu A down” lacks sufficient evidence. 
2. Regarding the issue of the expert opinion in this case: The defendant, a certain police station, failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that it had formally notified Zhang of the written conclusions of the diagnostic reports issued by medical institutions—conclusions which served as the basis for determining the extent of his personal injury. However, the audio recording evidence provided by Zhang clearly shows that he had submitted a request to the investigating authority, namely the said police station, for a re-examination. Yet, the police station neither made a decision on whether to conduct a re-examination nor explained its reasons for doing so. As a result, Zhang’s legitimate rights and interests were not adequately protected, and the administrative penalty procedure was therefore unlawful. 
In summary, the defendant police station’s determination of the facts was unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and the procedural requirements were violated; therefore, the administrative penalty decision it issued should be revoked. 
VI. Relevant Statutes: 
Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China states: “If an administrative act falls under any of the following circumstances, the people’s court shall rule to revoke or partially revoke the act and may also order the defendant to reissue the administrative act: (1) where the key evidence is insufficient; (2) where the law or regulation applied is incorrect; (3) where the statutory procedures have been violated; (4) where the authority has been exceeded; (5) where official power has been abused; (6) where the act is manifestly inappropriate.” 
VII. Lawyer’s Opinion: 
This case is a typical administrative dispute. In disputes involving “medical disturbances,” administrative authorities should exercise greater caution and meticulousness when issuing penalty decisions. In this case, from the lack of clarity regarding the facts and insufficient evidence to procedural violations arising from the failure to effectively serve the expert opinion and the imposition of penalties beyond the statutory time limit—each of these factors demonstrates that the facts upon which the administrative authority relied and the decision it made were flawed and did not meet the statutory requirements. The court strictly applied administrative laws and regulations in hearing this case and rendered a fair judgment in accordance with the law. 
Today, there are increasingly more cases in which citizens sue government officials, and citizens are winning these lawsuits at a growing rate. It should be noted that this trend is closely linked to the courts’ implementation of jurisdictional arrangements that assign administrative cases to courts located in different jurisdictions. By adjusting jurisdiction rules, channels for administrative interference in judicial proceedings have been effectively blocked, reducing judges’ concerns when handling such cases and boosting public confidence in the litigation process. More and more citizens are turning to administrative litigation to seek protection of their rights, and they are becoming increasingly bold in presenting their arguments and reasoning in court against administrative agencies. This demonstrates a growing awareness of the rule of law among citizens—a clear sign of societal progress. From a national perspective, this represents an important adjustment in the division of governmental and judicial functions, and it is a significant manifestation of the modernization of national governance.