A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

One hundred days out of the detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Of the facts charged, not guilty of death resulting from occupational abortion

Therefore, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, among the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel, the court below accepted the evidences of the city and recognized the fact that the defendant committed the crime of occupational abortion by causing the death of the victim by admitting the fact that the defendant committed the crime of occupational abortion by causing the death of the victim in the course of performing the abortion operation on the part of the defendant's management (name 1 omitted) in the Dongducheon-do's (hereinafter referred to as "site") located in Dongbcheon-do's Dong-do's Dong-do's Dong-do's 14 August 14, 1971.

However, the defendant denied the above facts of crime by the police, and the defendant tried to confirm that the fetus was in the state of the situation on the same day, and instructed non-indicted 1, who is an early man, to take the same measures, and there is only change in the patient's situation. The defendant added the site to the patient at the time or ordered non-indicted 1 to do so like the original time. However, there is no probability to acknowledge it in the record (However, according to the court below or investigation agency's statement by the witness of the court below or the court below, it is difficult to find that there was no other error in the court below's duty of care because the non-indicted 3, who is missing at the time, added "the site" to the defendant, and did not perform a so on the part of the mother hospital, and it is difficult to find that the defendant did not have any other duty of care as a part of the investigation agency's statement on the death report prepared by the non-indicted 4 or the statement made by the investigation agency of the non-indicted 3 as part of the above fact.

Therefore, party members are reversed in accordance with the original judgment under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and judged again as follows.

(Criminal Facts)

From June 1, 1959 to August 24, 1971, the Defendant operates (name 1 omitted) won in the Gecheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter omitted), while from March 1, 1971, the Defendant is a doctor who operates a hospital with a signboard (name 2 omitted) won in Sungnam-si (name 2 omitted), and has a license for narcotics handling;

During the period from January 7, 1970 to May 7, 1970 in the same year, when the administration took place with approximately 38 IMN from the patient non-indicted 6 (year 42, South) who was receiving treatment from the defendant at the time, to treat the person, the records of the name, address, age, sex, name of the disease, major symptoms, amount of medication, or the name, quantity, and date of the narcotics delivered for administration, as a matter of course, shall not be prepared and kept separately from those of the general medicines, notwithstanding the fact that the records of the name, age, sex, name of the disease, main symptoms, quantity of

제 2. 1970.5.16. 14:00경 (이름 1 생략)의원 수술실에서 동군 선서면 도신리 7반 공소외 7로부터 동인의 오른쪽 팔뚝 안쪽에 있는 외형상 밤톨크기 정도의 혹의 수술을 의뢰받고 그 혹을 절제하기 위하여 먼저 칼로 혹부분의 피부를 짼다음 피하조직 근육을 째어 혹을 노출시키고 혹을 절제하려 하였던바, 그 혹은 길이 약 15센치 폭 5센치의 척골신경종으로서 그 혹을 절제하려면 혹 양쪽의 신경을 절단하여야 하고 절단하였을 때에는 이를 봉합 또는 절단된 부분의 신경이식수술을 하여야 할뿐 아니라 신경이식수술을 한다하더라도 완전성공이 극히 어려우므로 이러한 경우에 의사로서는 혹 절제수술을 회피하거나 만일 절제수술을 할 경우에는 신경절단후 성공적으로 신경이식수술을 할 수 있는 시술준비를 갖춘후 절제수술을 하는등 그 혹의 신경절단으로 오는 병발증을 미연에 방지하여야 할 업무상 주의의무가 있음에도 불구하고, 피고인은 신경이식수술을 할 능력도 부족할 뿐 아니라 그 시설과 준비도 갖추지 아니하고 만연히 그 혹 양단(길이 15센치미터)의 신경을 절단한 후 그 혹을 절제하고서도 이에 대한 아무런 신경이식등 대책도 강구하지 아니함으로서 동인에게 영구불치의 우척골신경절단상을 입히고

No. 3. From March 31, 1971 to April 14 of the same year, Nonindicted 8, who did not obtain a doctor’s license, had Nonindicted 9, etc., who had been in the above hospital, perform medical practice by allowing him/her to do medical treatment at (name 1 omitted).

(Abstract of Evidence)

1. Part of statement consistent with the facts stated in the original judgment by the defendant;

1. Statement (1,2 times) consistent with the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below, which conforms with the witness in the original trial (1,2 times);

1. The description of the statement consistent with the judgment among the suspect examination records against the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Each statement statement made by a prosecutor and a senior judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13, which correspond to the facts in the judgment, among the written statements made by the prosecutor and the senior judicial police officer

1. Descriptions of 19 copies of the seized medical examination and treatment register and two copies of each sickbeds;

1. Statement that conforms to the part and degree of injury in the judgment among the medical certificates prepared in Nonindicted 13

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

In the so-called judgment of the defendant, the second part of the judgment in the judgment of the court below in Articles 64 (1) and 37 (1) of the Narcotics Act is a concurrent crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act. According to Articles 25 (1), 66 (3), and Article 31 (1) of the Criminal Act, according to Articles 65 and 25 of the former Medical Service Act (Act No. 1690), Article 31 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 31 (1) of the former Medical Service Act, and Article 1 (1) of the former Medical Service Act, since the punishment under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is not minor, the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to be a concurrent crime under Article 38 (1) 2 and (2) of the same Act, and Article 51 (1) of the same Act shall be included in the imprisonment without prison labor for a crime resulting in injury by occupational negligence, and a concurrent crime under Article 38 (1) 2 and (2) of the same Act within the term of imprisonment without prison labor within one year.

(not guilty Part)

Of the facts charged, the defendant, at around 15:00 on August 14, 1971, when performing abortion surgery against the victim's inducheon (name 1 omitted), he is found not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime for the reason stated above, as follows: (a) the defendant did not add only "the site" to the patient and did not perform his duty of care; and (b) the non-indicted 1, the early man, as a result of non-indicted 1's failure to perform his duty of care to perform the surgery independently; and (c) the defendant caused the victim's death at around 01:40 of the same month.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Oral-ho (Presiding Judge)