All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. In regard to Defendant B’s guilty part (the occupational and actual injury caused by breach of duty of care, such as monitoring active signs, etc.), it is impossible to allow a medical specialist to participate in anesthesia as an independent medical personnel whenever anesthesia using propool whenever considering the size of hospital, the current status of the medical industry, etc.

Defendant

B has fulfilled the duty of monitoring the signs of active signs of the victim, such as oxygen sporadism, blood pressure, and sporadity.

It was not proven that there was an independent medical team to monitor active signs, even if there was an independent medical team to avoid the occurrence of the results.

Therefore, even if Defendant B failed to faithfully perform the surveillance duty, the relationship between Defendant B’s breach of the duty of care and the occurrence of the result should be denied.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding Defendant B guilty of having committed a crime of occupational negligence and negligence due to Defendant B’s breach of duty of care, such as monitoring of active signs.

B. As to the Defendants’ violation of the Medical Service Act or a teacher in violation of the Medical Service Act among the non-criminal parts, Defendant A and B, a doctor, had Defendant C, a non-medical practitioner, infusing a propool into a beer, etc., and Defendant B did not properly supervise or take measures so that propo injection is terminated without any error.

The Defendants’ act constitutes a teacher in violation of the Medical Service Act or the Medical Service Act.

B) As to the occupational and practical death of Defendant C among the non-crimes, Defendant C, as a nursing assistant, shall provide nursing assistance and medical treatment assistance.

Therefore, if Defendant C injects the propool according to Defendant B’s instructions, he has the obligation to monitor the victim’s active signs, etc. and to take appropriate measures accordingly, and neglected this.

Therefore, Defendant C’s work status and performance should be recognized.

C) Of the non-criminal part, the remainder of Defendant B.