(b) Whether the nurse has a duty to conduct visual inspections and inspections of all patients in the recovery room where the nurse has not taken over his/her surveillance service;

B. If a nurse who did not take over the duty to monitor the victim was dedicated to the recovery treatment of his/her own patient, it is deemed that he/she has a duty to take measures against other nurses in the recovery room, even if other nurses remain in the recovery room, and it cannot be said that he/she has a duty to actively and continuously take measures against all patients in the recovery room.

1. According to the facts duly established by evidence, the victim of this case was administered in the state of anesthesia at the operating room of the hospital as of August 27, 1990, and received treatment for recovery of anesthesia from Defendant 1 and transferred to the recovery room at around 10:25 of that day. At around 10:55, Non-Party 1, who is a doctor in charge of anesthesia, was found to have a physiological disorder in pulmonary suspension, and was provided first aid, but did not recover consciousness, and died due to cerebral damage caused by pulmonary resuscitation or low oxygen on October 22 of that year.

2. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

In comparison with the records, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment of the court below based on the employment evidence. The defendant 1, who was in charge of the recovery of anesthesia, was found to have a special disorder in the operation, and confirmed that the anesthesia patient had a special disorder in the operation, is more thoroughly than ordinary patients, and there is no possibility that pulmon is suspended before the anesthesia patient's consciousness is recovered. Thus, the defendant 1, who was in charge of the recovery of anesthesia, has a duty to immediately take emergency measures in the event of an malfunction by specifying the nurse in charge of the victim until the victim's consciousness is completely recovered, or at least when the patient leaves the hospital, and let the patient continue the patient's condition until the patient's consciousness is completely recovered. Thus, the court below's decision that the defendant neglected the duty of care and the causal relationship between the victim's doctor and the nurse's care and the other defendant's doctor's failure to perform his duty of care and without any specific instruction. Thus, it is just that the defendant neglected the duty of care and the causal relationship between the victim's.

3. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

The court below held that the defendant 2 was not a nurse in charge of the recovery room, but the duty to monitor the victim was not taken over, and therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have neglected his duty of care in relation to the victim since he was not aware of the suspension of the victim's respiratory as he was committed before his recovery treatment. In addition, even in the case where another nurse was not in existence in the recovery room, even if he was committed with his own care in the case where he did not have any other nurse, he cannot be deemed to have a duty of care in relation to the victim. The court below held that the charges of this case against all patients in the recovery room cannot be seen as a case where there is no proof of crime, on the ground that the defendant did not have a duty of positive, continuous inspection, and inspection of all patients in the recovery room. It is justified by comparing the employment evidence record, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or the legal principles of a joint principal offender.

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)