B. Whether the act of satisfing in the condition of pregnancy by removal of satisfys constitutes injury to the prescribed crime of injury resulting from occupational negligence

B. Even if removal of an infertility had already been recovered from a victim’s womb in pregnancy, removal of the womb does not harm the completeness of the body, nor does it interfere with the health function, nor did it adversely change the health condition. This constitutes injury to the crime of injury resulting from occupational negligence.

Examining the evidence of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below according to the records, the defendant, as a doctor of the second-year training course with the Korean National University of Joseon University, tried to perform a launcing operation to remove the cruel treatment provided by the part of the victim (the victim (the victim of 38 years old), who was on dispatch to the Korean Red Cross Hospital, is relatively lacking in medical experience or medical knowledge, so he/she shall seek advice from the relevant pregnant woman or medical professional, and after conducting all necessary inspections for the above patient's medical treatment, he/she shall verify the name of the disease before opening the operation and enter into the surgery, and after opening the surgery, he/she shall sufficiently examine whether the name of the disease before opening the surgery is accurate, and shall conduct an operation within the necessary scope, without examining the facts of the first instance court's duty of care to examine the above patient at the first instance court's first time, and thought that it is possible that the patient is pregnant with the Korean National Assembly of Gwangju National Red Cross at the same time as that of the victim, who did not need to undergo an operation within the necessary scope of the first instance surgery.

In theory, prior to the implementation of the above pathic surgery, the purport that the illegality should be avoided because the above victim's consent was obtained from the above victim. However, according to the records, the defendant did not implement a detailed diagnosis method to determine whether the victim's disease, such as his own diagnosis, promotion results, etc., is pregnant outside of the womb, or whether the defendant is a prone of pathic, and without conducting a detailed diagnosis method to determine whether the above victim's illness is a prone of pathic, and based on this, emphasizes only the inevitable nature of pathic surgery to the above victim who did not have expertise in medical science, and without such diagnosis, it can be acknowledged that the above consent was obtained from the victim who did not have been explained about the contents of pathic surgery from the victim who did not have been explained about the above diagnosis, so the above consent is based on the defendant's inaccurate or insufficient explanation, and it cannot be deemed that the above consent was an effective consent to

In addition, the theory that even if the above victim has already recovered the womb due to the removal of the fetus, it does not constitute a prescribed injury resulting from occupational negligence even if the above victim had already recovered the womb due to the impossibility of pregnancy, it cannot be said that the removal of the womb alone does not harm the completeness of the body, nor does it interfere with the living function, or that it does not change the health condition badly, and it constitutes an injury to the crime of injury from occupational negligence.

In addition, in view of the fact that the medical accident of this case occurred, the defendant's crime of this case cannot be viewed as a legitimate act that is allowed to be ordinaryly. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)