업무상과실치사
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants on the following grounds of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable.
1) In light of the legal principles, the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation Agency’s appraisal statement was prepared under the circumstances beyond credit, and is naturally admissible pursuant to Article 315 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the lower court did not recognize the admissibility of the said appraisal statement.
2) Fact-misunderstanding ① Defendant A was sufficiently aware that the damaged person was in an emergency room and at least the state of patise pulmonary blood transfusion and satise marcule hume hume hume hume.
However, Defendant A did not have been hospitalized in a middle-patient room to receive appropriate treatment, and Defendant A did not simply increase the amount of antibiotic drugs, and even if he neglected to take emergency measures after retirement, there was negligence in the course of business.
② Defendant B was sufficiently aware of the aggravation of the victim’s state, such as a significant increase in the number of beer and so on, and Defendant A was not in contact with the victim at the time, even though he was not in a situation, the patient’s state at will was not serious.
As a result, there is an occupational negligence that does not report the condition of the patient to the doctor on duty.
2. Determination 1) As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the term “documents prepared under other particularly reliable circumstances” as prescribed by Article 315 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to documents with high level of circumstantial guarantee of credit standing to the extent that the granting of opportunity for cross-examination is not an issue, as stated in Articles 315 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and ordinary documents in the course of business.
Therefore, documents containing any opinion related to the recognition of criminal facts, not documents containing continuous and mechanical records, cannot be deemed as documents that are admissible as a matter of course under Article 315 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Supreme Court Decision 5 December 5, 2017). < Amended by Act No. 15148, Dec. 5, 2017>