The defendant does not bear a duty of care to supervise the above medical assistance activities of nurses.

2) The sentence of the lower court (300 million won) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not directly attach the Boli Sheet’s plaque.

In addition, the patient is obliged to pay attention to prevent the patient from locating his/her image by the electrical softening machine by putting the fright on the part other than the place where the resistance can be increased, such as a chestr and a chestr, etc.

① In the course of the surgery against the victim, the Defendant saw the victim’s fluorial fluor by using an electric fluorial electric fluor (a machine that embates tissues by using high-frequency electric energy or by responding to small blood cells).

The installation and operation of the electrical small machine on the patient's body is a part of the instant surgery, which is a medical practice conducted by the defendant for the victim.

A nurse was directly equipped with the victim's body with an electrical tenant;

Even if the instant operation is performed under the responsibility of the Defendant, and the nurse is merely an assistant of the Defendant. ② At the time of the instant case, I simply overlooked that the victimized person was reported to engage in the pressure of the nurse working at the Defendant hospital, and attached a shot to the outside of the victim’s left side flap.

However, I, while serving in the instant hospital, separately on the method of, or directions for, the use of the electric tenant.