1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendant not guilty on this part of the charges of this case, on the ground that in full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the relevant adopted evidence, the negligence of damaging the front part of the lifts caused 3 cm by negligence while using the lifts, which is a dentist collecting the instant surgery and separating the milked organization, was committed.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In order for a medical accident to have a medical doctor's negligence, it is possible to anticipate and avoid the occurrence of the outcome, and it is recognized that the doctor was not foreseeable or avoided even though he was able to do so. In determining the existence of negligence, the level of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same work and occupation shall be set as the standard, and the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, the specificity of medical practice, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13959, Sept. 8, 2011). In addition, criminal facts charged in a criminal trial should be proven by a prosecutor, and a judge should be convicted with evidence having probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the determination of guilt should be based on the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002, etc.). B.

The judgment below

The reasoning and the evidence duly admitted by the court below are as follows: ① importing free trade terms to the instant hospital.