The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant not guilty for the reason that the defendant's death in the order of correction of the victim of this case constitutes a legitimate act or an emergency evacuation, and that there is no evidence to readily conclude that the defendant's failure to perform his duty of care ordinarily required in the course of abortion and treatment subsequent thereto was caused by negligence, and that the defendant's failure to perform his duty of care normally required in the course of abortion, and that according to the timely evidence, the reason why the defendant performed abortion to the above order of correction is considerably likely to harm the health of the mother's body, and that there is no possibility that the maintenance of pregnancy might harm the mother's health, and that there is no possibility that the baby or the baby's baby might be delivered.

In light of the records, the court below's decision based on such reasons is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of abortion or the legal principles of emergency evacuation, such as the violation of the rules of evidence or the defense of the arguments, as it is acknowledged that the death of the above corrective order in this case cannot be deemed as being caused by the defendant's negligence, and that the abortion procedure constitutes a legitimate act or an emergency evacuation.

The appeal shall not be adopted as a result of the misunderstanding of facts that could not serve as the reason for the appeal in this case, unless the court below's exclusive jurisdiction over the determination of the evidence is costed, or unless otherwise, the appeal is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)