In order for a physician to have been negligent in a medical accident, the doctor may anticipate and avoid the occurrence of the outcome, and it shall be recognized that the doctor was not foreseeable or avoided even though he/she was able to do so. In determining the existence of negligence, the general level of care of the ordinary person engaged in the same work and occupation shall be the standard, and the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, and the specificity of the medical practice shall

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s conviction is presumed guilty on the part of the Defendants, and the Defendant’s conviction is presumed guilty on the part of the Defendants. In so doing, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendants guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime as to the facts charged in this case against the Defendants, and found them not guilty, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to occupational negligence.

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