beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.04.14 2016고단911

업무상과실치사

Text

1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won.

2. The defendants are above.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

From November 8, 2013, A worked as the head of the team at the “D Special Care Center” located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the nurse of the team from around November 8, 2013, and took overall charge of care of the physician’s assistance, patient’s daily life assistance, and guidance for medical care. Defendant B from February 12, 2015 to the above medical care center, while serving as the medical care care and care care doctor, and Defendant B took charge of the victim E’s medical care and care.

The "Class 3" in the facts charged in the indictment of Grade 2 of the recognition of long-term medical care seems to be a clerical error.

On November 16, 2013, an elderly patient who was judged was admitted to the medical care center and received the protection of the Defendants. Since food could not be Chewing normally due to the lack of infants, there was a risk of corrosioning due to the lack of infants, so food was supplied with normal death or food, and the Defendants were well aware of the status of the victim.

Defendant

A performs missionary activities at around 13:40 on November 15, 2015 at a second-story program room underground of the Medical Care Center;

F was well aware that the Defendant was intending to divide the medical care patients of the victim, etc. into “dule rice,” and tried to divide them into “dule rice,” and thus, Defendant A had a duty of care to take measures not to provide “dule rice,” or to provide “dule rice,” with “dule,” as the victim,” but did not take any measures, so that the said “dule” was provided to the victims, etc. of this case.

In addition, Defendant B found that the victim, who gets on and moved from wheelchairss in the above program room around 14:40 on the same day, had “dynam rice,” which was provided by the above F, and Defendant B, had a “dynam rice,” and Defendant B was the victim who is drinking “dy rice,” due to negligence in the victim’s week even though he had a duty of care to take necessary measures so that the victim, who did not have a baby, did not drink, can not drinkd rice, in a state where he did not have any support.