업무상과실치상
All appeals filed by prosecutors, Defendant B, and C are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B (De facto Error and misunderstanding of legal principles) was unable to demand the Defendant, who is the nurse of the medical examination center, to perform the duty of care required for the nurse of the general hospital, and was aware of the administration of becar loan to I, who is a doctor at the time of medication. Therefore, the Defendant fulfilled his duty
B. Defendant C (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) cannot demand the Defendant, who is the nurse of the examination center, to pay a duty of care required to the general hospital nurse. Since Co-defendant A received a request from the co-defendant A to inquire about whether the complete education program was in the hospital, he merely notified the Defendant of the fact that there was becarlon by making search, it cannot be deemed that there was an occupational negligence.
C. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 5 million; a fine of KRW 500,000; a fine of KRW 500,000; and a fine of KRW 1 million,00,000,000) that the public prosecutor sentenced by the lower court is too un
2. Determination
A. Defendant B and C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are identical to that alleged in the lower court.
The court below rejected the assertion in detail under the title B, C, and the defense counsel’s argument.
In light of the purport of granting a nurse's license only to the nursing major who passed the national examination under the Medical Service Act, prohibiting non-licensed medical personnel's medical practice, and considering the scope of duties commonly performed by the nurse regardless of the size of the sick, it is reasonable to view that the nurse of a medical institution that does not fall under the general hospital has a duty to confirm and consider in advance the basic efficacy, side effects, and cautions for administration of injection prior to the administration of the prescribed medicine to perform his duties. Thus, the judgment of the court below which recognized the Defendants' occupational negligence is justifiable.
Therefore, the above Defendants’ assertion.