A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, conducted an emergency scopic operation by determining that the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics, and that the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics

In addition, the court below held that the risk to the life of E and fetus was caused by the reasons attributable to the defendant, and cannot be deemed as an act of emergency evacuation on the basis of objective evidence, such as nursing records, even though the above circumstances are not acknowledged according to objective evidence, such as nursing records.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though the Defendant was not guilty or not guilty, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is recognized that a doctor could have predicted or avoided the occurrence of a consequence, even though he/she could have been able to avoid it, and that it was not foreseeable or avoided. In determining the existence of negligence, the degree of general attention of ordinary workers engaged in the same work and occupation shall be based on the standard, and the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, medical environment and conditions, characteristics of medical practice, etc. shall be considered.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1399 Decided September 8, 2015