2010No6239 Injury by occupational negligence

문▲ ▲ ( 68년생 , 남 ) , 전문직

Accommodation-si

Busan District Court

Both parties

Jin-Jin-Jin

Attorney Park Jong-won

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Ma1603 Decided December 15, 2010

June 29, 2011

All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

(a) Grounds for appeal by a prosecutor;

(1) Error of facts (not guilty part of the court below)

Considering the fact that the defendant's negligence in performing the victim's operation within the left-to-face chill surgery, and the second procedure that may not be said to have been conducted, that is, artificial insemination crypology and crypology surgery, that is, the elderly victim conducted the second operation at the defendant's negligence, resulting in the deterioration of the function of each dead-to-face cells, and that the infection is inevitably increased under the function of each dead-end cells, and that there is no choice but to increase the risk of infection by the defendant's negligence, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was the victim's real name due to the first operation (the in-house crypology) and the second procedure that may not be conducted, the court below erred in misunderstanding facts otherwise.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (the fine of 3,000, 000 won) is too unhued and unfair.

(b) Reasons for appeal by the defendant (the guilty part of the court below)

Since the latter may easily spread down to a small scale of shock, it cannot be deemed that there was a negligence on the part of the defendant with the fact that the victim's post-examination heat was generated during the operation of the victim's post-examination, and the defendant took all appropriate measures against the latter re-examination heat. In addition, the victim's post-examination heat was not properly worn out, and even if the Defendant's negligence caused the post-examination heat, there was no direct causal relationship between the post-examination heat and the internal infection. Thus, the victim's real name damage cannot be said to be caused by the defendant's occupational negligence. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. Whether the defendant is liable for negligence in the course of performing his/her duties with respect to the name of the seat of the seat of the military unit (the part of the appeal by the prosecutor);

(4) On May 23, 2005, the Defendant: (a) opened a 2-month gate to treat the victim 1; (b) opened a 1-month climatic climatic cliffic clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific c.

B. Whether the defendant is liable for occupational negligence with respect to the name of the well-known person (the part on the defendant's appeal)

The following facts or circumstances revealed by each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. ① The victim was a person who was under operation on May 23, 2005, and then was farcated, so if the victim again performed an operation on a white spot again before the lapse of two months, the defendant should have become aware that any similar situation may occur in the process of performing cryption by using an ultra-frequency gun, which is the operation method at the time of the operation (the investigation record 50 pages), ② it is difficult to view the victim's cryposis to the actual base, ③ it was hard to view the victim's cryposis to the extent that there was no danger of spreading cryposis during the cryposis operation, ③ it was hard to view the victim's cryposis operation at the time of the outbreak of cryposis, and ③ it was difficult to find the victim's cryposis at the time of the above cryposis operation.

C. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s occupational negligence caused the serious injury of the victim, namely, the name of the victim’s in mind; (b) on the other hand, the Defendant deposited KRW 30 million for the victim; (c) the type of the representative of the company in which the victim was working at the time; (d) the Defendant appears to have received KRW 100 million upon filing a lawsuit for damages against the victim * * the primary offender; (e) the degree of the Defendant’s negligence; (c) the degree of the Defendant’s negligence; (d) the circumstances after the commission of the crime; (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and family relationship; and (e) the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, since all appeals filed by the prosecutor and the defendant are without merit, they are all dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge's salary class;

Han-hee/

Private Jinsia