In the course of the administration, the negligence of business can be recognized as a result of neglecting the monitoring of the victim's active signs.

② According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the relationship between occupational negligence of the defendant who delayed all measures taken by the victim and the death of the victim can be acknowledged.

2. (1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion that the victim’s negligence can be acknowledged as a negligence in the course of duty, which was neglected to monitor the victim (1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the prosecutor, the sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was negligent in the course of duty as a result of the Defendant’s neglecting to monitor the victim’s potential signs while administering propool for about 10 minutes.

It is difficult to conclude that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① There is no record of the medical records of the instant hospital against the victim and any other record on the victim’s blood pressure, beer, respiratory, and oxygen ion for ten minutes.

However, it is not so.

On the other hand, the defendant did not observe the victim's active signs for the above 10 minutes, and did not take any measures against this.

It shall not be readily concluded.

② Rather, immediately after the Defendant administered propool 15cc, the Defendant found that there was a symptoms of water-free smoking to the victim, and that the oxygen spores rate sharply fell.

In light of this point, the Defendant seems to have observed the victim's beer and mountain sporessporessporessponding by using light poppy pressure measuring devices (Romeo merta) for the ten minutes above that the nurse J in receipt of the Defendant's instructions, and directly observe the victim's state on the land.

(2) The court below cited the judgment of the court below for the above deliberation.