1. In order to recognize a medical doctor’s negligence in a medical accident, it is necessary to anticipate the occurrence of the outcome and to recognize that the occurrence of the result was impossible to do so even though it was possible to avoid it. In order to determine the existence of such negligence, the degree of general attention of the general person engaged in the same duties and duties shall be based on the standard. In this case, the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, medical environment

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court determined that the Defendant was negligent in performing duties, such as the instant facts charged, and the causal relationship leading to the death of the victim therefrom, based on comprehensive consideration of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and that the measures of maintaining the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged are justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.