Upon examining the original judgment, as stated in the original judgment, the Defendant: (a) performed a so-called surgery for pregnancy at the victim non-indicted 1’s request; (b) deemed that no content exists in the womb; and (c) concluded that the Defendant, who is a medical specialist, has a duty of care to encourage the medical examination of a general hospital equipped with medical facilities if the Defendant did not do so; and (d) found the Defendant’s hospital’s management after about 20 (20) days from a so-called so-called surgery and continued pregnancy; (b) concluded that there was a concern of pregnancy outside the womb; (c) as such, there was a danger of pain in pregnancy; (d) concluded that the Defendant was unable to have his/her life by taking care of his/her hair, such as taking care of his/her clothes, and thus, (e) concluded that he/she could not have his/her own health care to have his/her own pregnant woman nor have his/her health care provided to him/her at a general hospital, and thus, (e) concluded that he/she could not have taken care to have taken care in the victim’s.

Determination on the second ground of appeal as to the same ground of appeal

As explained above, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant neglected his duty of care as a doctor lawfully, and there is no reason to criticize the original judgment as an opposing opinion to the above recognition, and there is no reason to hold a final appeal to criticize the original judgment. The court below did not recognize the purport that the defendant did not immediately escort the victim in a mixed state to the general hospital immediately, and it is obvious by the original judgment that the defendant was negligent in the course of his duty, and therefore, the court below cannot adopt the guidance of final appeal to the effect

The judgment on the third ground for appeal as above;

As determined in the ground of appeal No. 1, there is no argument in the appeal that the defendant's pressure, such as taking a part in the clothes to re-check the victim, was found to have a relation between the defendant's negligent diagnosis act (the taking part in the clothes) and the death of the victim according to the medical certificate of the doctor's attitude that the victim was dead due to the death of the victim after the result of the pressure, such as taking part in the clothes to re-check the victim, and that there is no reason to view that there is a relation between the defendant's negligent diagnosis act

As to the ground of appeal No. 4

The appeal is groundless because the court below's judgment is clearly admitted that there is causation between the defendant's occupational negligence and the victim's death.

Therefore, according to Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong, Ma-dong, and Ma-dong, Ma-man