업무상과실치상
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12 million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that, although the court below acquitted the Defendant on the facts charged of this case, in light of the fact that the victim ceased to use the excessive spawn for a considerable period of time from the surgery and that a considerable period of time is needed to put the INR value into normal figures in the case of taking back again after the suspension of the excessive spawn use, it constitutes an obvious occupational negligence where the Defendant did not take preventive measures against the occurrence of the previous spawn in the course of releasing the victim, in addition to ordering the Defendant to wear the excessive spawn as it is, and the causal relationship between the occupational negligence and the injury suffered by the victim
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment as stated in the following facts charged at the time of the trial, and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.
B. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts: (a) In order to determine the existence of negligence on the part of a doctor in a medical accident, it is recognized that the doctor could have predicted and avoided the occurrence of the outcome; and (b) it was not foreseeable or avoided. Determination of the existence of negligence ought to be based on the standard of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same work and occupational category; and (c) the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions at the time of the accident, and the specificity of the medical practice
Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1399 Decided September 8, 2015