업무상과실치상
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was at fault of the defendant when he was investigated by the investigative agency about the fact that the defendant had been at the victim's minor seat, and the defendant was at fault. Thus, the judgment below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant was not at fault is erroneous and unfair.
2. The lower court determined, as indicated in its reasoning, that the police suspect questioning protocol against the Defendant was denied by the Defendant, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor remains on the victim’s surgery due to the Defendant’s negligence. Rather, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the Defendant was negligent in the course of disinfection since other doctors could still remain in the process of disinfection after the victim’s surgery.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, ① The victim was a patient at the first DNA department, F, who was a doctor in charge of the pathic surgery, in the process of the treatment of the victim, and F, in the process of the treatment of the victim, requires an operation for the treatment of the pathic farming and the pathic farming, so F, who is a doctor in charge of the pathic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic frithic f.