There is a widely known person, and the family members of the victim have a habit of eating the victim's food with no food.

In light of the fact that prior notice was given in advance, among the service plan of the medical care center, that the "to see food compliance" is stipulated in the "breath" item, etc., the Defendants could have predicted that the victim would suffer from respiratory difficulties caused by pulmonary disorder due to marcing, if the victim left alone breabbbbbbing supplied by the medical care center. Defendant A additionally employs a medical care protection doctor, or takes measures to make the elderly admitted to the medical care center in this case share a breathing place, etc., and Defendant B could avoid the above results due to the victim's failure to perform his duty of care so that the victim could drink the breathing and die the breathing part of the breathing part of the case without recognizing the Defendants' occupational negligence. Accordingly, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendants acquitted the facts charged in this case and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The collective opinion presented to the full bench about the recognition of facts by a juror composed of citizens cultivated through strict selection procedures in the criminal trial proceedings conducted in the form of a citizen participatory trial introduced to enhance democratic legitimacy and trust in the judiciary is effective as a recommendation to help a judge of the court of the fact that he/she has a full right to the preparation of evidence and fact-finding under the principle of substantial direct deliberation and court-oriented trials, and the jury is before the examination of facts, such as the examination of witness.