All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles (Defendant 1) The victim was negligent on duty on the premise that the defendant did not take the above emergency measures on the ground that the victim did not take such measures as cardiopulmonary resuscitation on April 26, 2014, as it was necessary to take measures to supply oxygen from around 11:10 to 11:32, as well as to take appropriate emergency measures such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

It is unreasonable to judge.

2) Under the determination that it is appropriate for the Defendant to send the victim to a more specialized hospital in light of the victim’s respiratory level, beer condition, etc. after the procedure, the Defendant transferred the victim to Samsung Hospital and monitor the victim’s state of the victim after having arrived at Samsung Hospital, and then informed the medical personnel of the victim’s state after having arrived at Samsung Hospital. Such measures do not constitute occupational negligence because there was no adequate or potential substitution in light of the victim’s state, and it is difficult to recognize the relationship between the Defendant’s measures and the victim’s damage to cerebriformiformum.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment without prison labor and two years of suspended execution) is too unfluent, and that the prosecutor is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge on the ground that the Defendant alleged misunderstanding of the Defendant’s facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine also asserted the same in the trial. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that, even if the victim was in a state of emergency measures such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the supply of oxygen from April 26, 2014 to November 11:32, 2014, even though the victim was in a state of emergency measures, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the Defendant’s occupational negligence was recognized, and the victim’s injury was recognized as having a substantial causal relationship between the Defendant’s occupational negligence and the victim’s injury.

The above judgment of the court below is recorded.