업무상과실치사
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of each of the instant verdict of innocence is publicly notified.
1. Defendant A is a person who is in charge of diagnosis and treatment as a director within the first section of the EF hospital located in Ansan-si, and Defendant B is a person who is in charge of medical treatment or nursing as a doctor's nurse at the above FF hospital.
Defendant
A around April 3, 2015, around 19:00, the network G was advanced by the damaged person hospitalized at the F Hospital.
당시 피해자는 체온 38.2℃, 심박동 수 분당 133회, 호흡수 분당 20회, 전혈 검사 상 백혈구 수 2,320/ ㎣, 혈압이 78/56mm Hg까지 저하되는 소견이 있었으므로 이미 패혈증과 패혈성 쇼크상태에 이르렀으므로, 진료 업무에 종사하는 자에게는 피해자의 상태가 어떠한지 제대로 살피고 이에 따라 피해 자를 중환자실에 입원시켜 승압제를 사용하는 등 적절한 처치를 할 업무상 주의의무가 있었다.
Nevertheless, the defendant A neglected to do so, and only issued an instruction to conduct treatment in accordance with general waste collection, such as the increase in anti-biological system, and administered it to the victim.
Defendant
B around April 4, 2015, around 13:00, 145 times per minute, where the beer of the above victim was 13:00, the 145 times per normal person, and thus, in such a case, a person engaged in the business of assisting the doctor in the business of treating the victim has a duty of care to report the patient's condition to the doctor on duty, and to follow the direction.
Nevertheless, Defendant B neglected this and arbitrarily judged that the state of the victim was not serious, and did not notify the private person H of the duty.
After all, the Defendants jointly caused the death of the victim due to the above occupational negligence by the merger certificate, such as a parody, etc. caused by the pulmonary waste collection around April 4, 2015.
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) Civil liability and criminal liability arising from medical malpractice are mutually different in terms of the guiding ideology, burden of proof, degree of proof, etc.