업무상과실치상
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the prosecutor claiming the error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles also claims the grounds for the appeal of this case. However, since the court below acquitted the whole facts charged of this case, the court below did not separately decide on the grounds that it could not serve as the appropriate grounds for appeal).
A. According to the results of the fact-finding reply by the Korean Medical Association on June 26, 2012, the defendant could sufficiently be recognized that he/she was occupationally engaged in investigating radr due to excessive robbery in the process of the instant procedure. The lower court rejected the probative value of the results of the above reply that has credibility and accuracy without reasonable grounds, and determined the results of the fact-finding reply by the Korean Medical Association on April 8, 2014 as the basis of the judgment of innocence.
B. In the instant procedure, not only the Defendant’s occupational negligence performed the rashing procedure due to excessive robbery, but also the Defendant’s occupational negligence violates the duty of explanation on the side effects anticipated in the instant procedure and the Defendant’s duty of care to minimize side effects, such as pre-examination to prepare for side effects, etc., and such occupational negligence can also be seen as the cause of the instant injury.
C. Nevertheless, the court below did not decide on the facts of this case by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which did not recognize occupational negligence conducting the rashing procedure due to excessive robbery, and did not decide on the violation of duty of care to minimize the duty of explanation or side effects, and acquitted the facts of this case.
2. Determination
A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is an intention to operate the “Dward” on the 5th floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building.
On August 24, 2011, at the above hospital around 15:00, the Defendant carried out an rashing procedure (IPL) on the face of the victim E (the 30 years of age at the time, south, and the 30 years of age).
The doctor who conducts the rash treatment shall be in the state of the patient's skin and shall be in the appropriate time for strength suitable to the patient.