Seo-gu, Daejeon:

【Seodaemun-gu, Seoul: Omission

The defendant was working as the director of the division outside of the Yusung Hospital, and is currently engaged in the duties of medical treatment, surgery, etc. of patients as a doctor of the modern hospital in the Asansan.

On August 19, 2010: around 00, the Defendant: (a) hospitalized the victim of Yong-gu, Daejeon Pungsung-dong, Pungsung-dong, Masung-dong, into the operation room of the Pungsung-dong, and (b) performed the procedure of separating it by inserting four writers under the lag lacing lacing Treatment Act to conduct the lacing lacing, and inserting four lacings into the lacing procedure; (c) the lacing lacing lacing lacing lac into the lacing lac; and (d) the lac lac lac lac lac lac lac lac lac lac lac lac lac lac lac.

In such a case, as a doctor may go to another institution, such as a general hall, a general hall, and a wing room, etc., it is possible for the said institution to confirm in advance, pay attention not to damage the said institution, and conduct drinking water, even though there was an occupational duty to do so, the Defendant did not discover the gate under the back of the gate and caused injury to the victim from leakage of sap by neglecting the sap from the negligence of performing a gromatic operation, and caused the victim to suffer from an injury caused by the leakage of sapaps by leaving the saps under the gate, and did not receive treatment until September 18 of the same year. Accordingly, the victim was hospitalized into the Masan Hospital by the time of the 18th of the same month and was hospitalized into the said hospital, and the Defendant did not receive treatment to the extent that the victim was unable to use the said part by preventing the use of sapkes through the method of blocking the operation of the said part.

2. Determination

A. The progress of the instant case

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by this Court, the following facts may be recognized:

(1) Implementation of an operation

① On August 18, 2010, the victim was diagnosed with gromatic ray infection and was hospitalized for grodial wing surgery. On August 19, 2010, the Defendant conducted a basic examination against the victim in preparation for grodic anesthesia and grodic grodic grodic grodic grodial grodial grodial grodial grodial grodial grodial grodial grodial grodial gio

② On August 19, 2010, the Defendant explained to the victim and his guardian, the victim, about 19th, about 2010, that the victim’s balconium balconium was carried out with the victim’s acute balconium; whether the balconium was converted from the balconium to the balconium; whether the balconium was damaged in the course of the operation (one of the 200 persons), and the possibility of the balconium in the process of the operation (one of the balconium, the balconium, and the balconium (the balconium), and obtained the consent of the victim and the balconium

③ On August 19, 2010, the Defendant conducted a general anesthesia on the part of the victim at the operating room of the Yusung Line Hospital around 00: (a) inserted four writers at the Defendant’s house into each of them into the ducts and started ducts by ducts; (b) ducts were limited to ducts; (c) ducts were difficult; and (d) the ducts of the ducts and the right-hand ducts were seriously changed due to ducts.

④ Accordingly, the Defendant conducted a procedure for stuffing a milked door into the surrounding organization, and conducted a procedure for verifying the reciting and reciting the reciting and reciting it, and then combines the reciting from the gate to the gate by distinguishing it from the gate, and by using an electric reticulator to separate it from the surrounding organization, the Defendant confirmed that the gate, which embarked under the gate, was damaged and the embarkap leaked was leaked.

⑤ The Defendant recovered ducts from ducts and recovered ducts, and confirmed 10 or more diameters of 10 or more in diameter, and decided to convert ducts into ductal surgery, where the leakage of ductal ducts continues.

6) After opening, the Defendant removed clocks from the upper part of the x-ray clocks and performed x-ray clocks, and confirmed that the front and rear x-ray clocks were normal for the inspection. The damaged part of the xlocks was determined to be the front and rear x-ray clocks of the right part of the inspection, and the xlocks were determined to be the right part of the right part of the xlocks to be carried out independently from the bottom of the glocks to the xlocks, and confirmed that the additional xlocks were not leaked, and completed operation

(2) Progress, etc. after an operation

① From the 3th day after the surgery, the victim continued to extract 80 to 100c sappores each day through an inculium, and transferred to the Seoul Acsan Hospital on September 6, 2010. The victim removed the absence from the course of study on September 8, 2010, and discharged at the Seoul Acsan Hospital on September 18, 2010, the victim discharged the Plaintiff from the place of absence on September 18, 2010, as the context between September 15, 2010.

② On May 11, 201, the victim is in the state of not affecting the physiological function due to damage to the fence in view of both normal opinions in the examination of the last function and the collection of blood on salt at the Seoul Asan Hospital.

B. Whether the defendant's occupational negligence is recognized

(1) In order to recognize a doctor's negligence in a medical accident, it is necessary to examine whether a doctor was unable to anticipate the occurrence of the result despite the foreseeable of the occurrence of the result, and whether a doctor was unable to avoid the occurrence despite the possibility of avoiding the occurrence of the result. In determining the result, the level of attention of an ordinary person engaged in the same work shall be set based on the standard, and the degree of medical science, the environment at the time of the accident, the characteristics of medical practice, etc. shall be taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6083, Oct. 27, 2006). On the other hand, in order to recognize a doctor's negligence in a criminal trial, it shall be proved that a doctor's negligence has violated the duty of care to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in accordance with the principle of "the defendant's interest" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do44, Dec. 22, 2000).

(2) On May 21, 2013, the Defendant’s request for appraisal of medical records was made to the Korean Medical Association on the following facts: (a) whether the Defendant had occupational negligence within the scope of the instant indictment; and (b) on May 21, 2013, to the Korean Medical Association.

In addition, the following circumstances can be seen: (i) epidemarization of epidemarism by ductal absence is not a fundamental treatment method; (ii) standard duculation by duculation is an operation by duculation; (iii) duculation of duculation is likely to cause damage to duculation in the surgery because duculation was not clear if duculation was performed by duculation; and (iv) in light of the fact that duculation was not conducted by the victim when duculation was separated from duculation; (iii) it was difficult for the victim to conclude that duculation was damaged in the process of the surgery by duculation when duculation was performed by duculation; and (v) it was difficult to conclude that duculation was damaged by the victim when duculation was performed by the victim when duculation was performed by the victim when duculation was performed by the victim’s.

C. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged against the defendant constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, so the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.