업무상과실치상등
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants and Defendant A are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) sufficiently explained the possibility of occurrence of merger, such as internal autopsy and anti-proof, to the victim before the instant operation, and subsequently performed the instant operation with the victim’s consent. Since the Defendant fulfilled the ordinary duty of care required in general medical level even at the time of the operation, it is not unlawful for Defendant A to have no occupational negligence or Defendant A’s act.
In addition, due to the first operation (hereinafter "the first operation") in the judgment of the court below, there was an internal autopsy and an internal autopsy against the victim, and the victim demanded prompt correction and conducted the second operation (hereinafter "the second operation") as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, there was an internal autopsy due to the second operation as soon as possible.
As can not be seen, there is a causal relationship between the Defendant’s repeated ruptures and internal and external ruptures as indicated in the facts charged.
subsection (b) of this section.
2) The extent of Defendant A’s involvement in the lower court’s misunderstanding of the facts (1) is difficult to view that Defendant A gave individual instructions or delegations on the removal of Defendant B’s actual brea(s). The PRGRES NE written by Defendant A did not contain any content on the removal of the actual brea(s) to the victim. The REAENNE written by Defendant B contains the content, and it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant B independently performed the removal of the actual brea(s) without individual instructions or supervision of Defendant A, who is the doctor. However, the lower court acquitted Defendant of this part of the facts charged.
(2) Improper sentencing (the guilty part against Defendant A) committed by the lower court against Defendant A (the penalty amount of two million won) is too uneased and unfair.
2. Determination 1) Defendant A’s assertion on Defendant A is the same as that alleged in the original trial.
The court below held that "the judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and the defense counsel" is below.