1. In order to recognize a doctor's negligence in a medical malpractice case as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, it should be recognized that the occurrence of outcome could be predicted and that it could not have been avoided. The determination of the existence of such negligence must be based on the standard of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same duties and duties. In such a case, the level of general medical science as at the time of the accident, medical environment and conditions, peculiarity of medical practice, etc. should be taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8980, Dec. 24, 2009; 2009Do7070, Apr. 29, 2010). The lower court found Defendant A guilty of not having been aware of the situation through simple telephone communications, and did not take any measures such as identifying the victim's isolation, and did not inform the victim and his facilities of the situation that the victim did not have been under the care of the victim at any time and did not have been under the care of the victim.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s reasoning is partly inappropriate, but the said judgment is justifiable.