beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.05.28 2014고정1350

업무상과실치상

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is an oriental medical doctor who operates Daehan in Seo-gu, Daejeon and the third floor of Daejeon.

From February 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around February 10, 2014, the victim E (here, 37 years of age) who was first visited from the above Council members with an brupt pain; (b) dives treatment; (c) dives treatment; (d) hives treatment; and (e) hives treatment, such as

On February 12, 2014, the defendant, who was found to be the same symptoms in Hanwon, had the victim undergo 15 minutes of 15 minutes of her return treatment by driving the live factoring (35cm x 25cm x 80cm x 25cm) into the lives of 80 degrees cm.

Although the defendant has a duty of care to observe the temperature, method of procedure, time, temperature, patient condition, etc. of live factoring closely and to pay attention to lest he be exposed to pictures, he or she caused injury caused by the victim's 15 minutes of his or her neglect to perform a live factoring procedure on the part of the victim's lives of treatment days, which is formed on the part of the victim's body.

2. The judgment of the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the defendant fulfilled their duty of care when treating E, and therefore, we live in this regard.

As shown in the facts charged in this case, there are a written complaint of E, a police statement of E, a written statement of the defendant and an additional statement, a medical treatment confirmation, a damaged photograph, and a medical examination and treatment record (24 pages of investigation records).

According to the police statement of E, E was the best part of the body of the police on February 12, 2014, and the nurse did not feel hot, but did not feel hot, even though the nurse was frighted to speak at the body of the police on February 12, 2014. While brying out the body of the body of the police on hand, the body was so hot, the body did not do so.

It is insufficient to recognize that the above statement alone did not fulfill the duty of care to protect images by closely observing the temperature, method of procedure, time, temperature, patient condition, etc. of live factoring.

Defendant .