2010 Highest 1276 Occupational Death, etc.

1. OO○ (58 years old), her father and her doctor;

2. NiveO○ (88 years old), and an assistant nurse;

Banobia

Attorney Kim Jong-○ (for the defendant)

March 9, 2011

The punishment against the Defendants shall be determined by each imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

Criminal History Office

The defendant head of ○○ is the ○○ Child in Gwangju Mine-dong and the doctor, and the defendant Yang ○○ is the assistant nurse of the above hospital.

Around 04:30 on October 25, 2009, the head of the Defendant’s ○○○○ had only the part of the ○○○○○○○○, and the Defendant’s ○○○ was transferred to the newborn baby on the same day at around 18:30 on the same day and protected the newborn baby in the newborn cell. At the time the ○○○○○○ was to deliver the fetus, the head of the Defendant’s ○○○○ removed the urine after the fetus was in the state of her burning the fetus at the time when the ○○○○ was to deliver the newborn, and the ○○○ was in the state of symptoms of the son○○○○, such as a large-scale lusium, such a large-scale lusium, such as a large-scale lusium, where the said newborn baby was not fast, and

As seen above, a newborn baby was capable of becoming a brush in the process of drinking the brush, and when Defendant ○○○○ transferred the newborn baby, he had a symptoms of mass acquisition and smoking after the mass acquisition of the newborn baby. In such a case, the doctor must observe the said newborn baby continuously and check out whether there is any difficulty in respiratory, such as that the symptoms of the brush, a mass acquisition of the brut army, can not be promptly promptly delayed. The nurse has a duty of care to protect the health of the newborn baby by ventilating the nurse to take highly advanced protective measures than normal newborn baby, and the nurse has a duty of care to immediately report such fact to the doctor and protect the health of the newborn baby.

Nevertheless, at around 2-3 p.m. on the same day, the head of the defendant ○○○ (hereinafter “the head of the defendant ○○”) did not take any main action against nursess at all times on the same day, and the defendant ○○ (hereinafter “the head of the defendant ○”), despite the symptoms of the mass acquisition and smoking certification group, did not report them to the doctor despite the symptoms of the her mass acquisition and smoking certification group, divided the friendly ties and did not properly look at the above newborn baby, thereby causing the death of the above newborn baby due to the respiratory suspension due to the mass acquisition and smoking certification group around 05:00 on October 26, 2009.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly caused the death of a newborn baby by occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of Defendant ○○○’s head, and the legal statement of Defendant 20○○○

1. Each legal statement of ○○○○○ (only applicable to the defendant’s ○○○○) and ○○○;

1. Each legal statement of the witness ○○○ and Doz○○;

1. Each prosecutorial suspect examination protocol against the Defendants

1. An interrogation protocol of the police on the defendant ○○○ (applicable only to both the defendant and the defendant ○○);

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning ○○○;

1. Statement of each police statement on ○○○;

1. Reporting on the occurrence of a disaster, on-site photographs, and investigation reports;

1. A record of nursing day, sea-durrierr code, piter, mountain marsen, and stebropo-wave;

1. Death diagnosis report and report on request for appraisal;

1. The fact-finding statement;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Code (Selection of imprisonment without prison labor)

Reasons for sentencing

The punishment shall be determined in consideration of the following: (a) the course of the case and the degree of negligence; (b) the post-case attitude; (c) the parent of the deceased newborn baby; (d) the fact that no compensation was made; (c) the responsibility of the Defendant for the death of the newborn baby was more direct or work experience; (d) the responsibility of the Defendant for the death of the newborn baby was shorter; and (e) any delivery from the immediately preceding nurse was impossible; and (e) other reasons for sentencing.

Reasons for conviction

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) The career of Defendant ○○○ and the type of operation with the ○○○ Side.

Defendant ○○○ had worked as a full-time lecturer on February 28, 1986 after obtaining a doctor’s license and served as a public health doctor, and had worked as a professor of the Katool character for one year, and had worked as a full-time lecturer at the Hannam Mental Hospital for two years after working as a part-time lecturer on April 19, 2003. around 2009, the Defendant and the Defendant and one nurse, one clinical nurse, one nurse, two nurse, and one nurse was operated as a system to care for a newborn baby at night.

(2) The health conditions of the mother before delivery and the progress of delivery;

On March 19, 2009, the ○○○○ was pregnant with the ○○○ Child, and received medical treatment on April 20, 200, May 25, 100, and on October 20, 10, the fetus was conducted blood pressure, single-curology, and surbinology. At the time, the fetus was included in the body less than the body of the body compared to the body of the body. For this reason, the ○○○○, who is the Defendant, recommended the ○○○○○ to correct only the leading part, unless there is any pain even after a day.

On October 25, 2009, ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○”). Along with 20 minutes of a new wall, ○○○○○, her husband, had arrived at 4:00 square meters by communicating with her husband. The head of ○○○○ and the assistant nurse’s ○○○○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 1.

(3) Progress after the delivery

류○○은 분만 4시간 후 신생아에게 설탕물을 먹였고 , 그 후 간호조무사 최○○ 가 분유를 먹였다. 피고인 장○○은 오후 2-3시경 신생아실에 들러 신생아의 상태를 확인하였고, 간호조무사들에게 신생아에 대한 특별한 지시를 하지 않고 퇴근하였다. 피 고인 양○○(2006년 간호조무사 자격을 취득한 후 4개월간 실습하고, 1개월의 치과 근 무 이력이 있었는데 2009. 3. 말부터 ○○산부인과에서 근무하고 있었다) 은 최○○, 류 ○○으로부터 오후 6시 30분경 신생아를 인수받았다. 그때 류○○은 피고인 양○○에 게 신생아가 "분유를 잘 빨지 못한다. 분유꼭지를 3개째 바꿨는데 잘 못 먹는다."고 말 하여 주었고, 그 외 아이의 출산과정이나 상태에 대한 정보나 주의사항을 전달하지 않 았다. 당시 신생아는 입술이 약간 파란색을 띠고 있었고, 숨소리가 고르지 못했다.

(4) After the defendant ○○ acquired a newborn baby, the passage of this case

After taking over a newborn baby, Defendant 00 ○○ ○○ dynasium with another newborn baby in Qatter (the Defendant ○○ dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium).

Defendant ○○○ entered a newborn baby intending to take part between 2-3 p.m. (hereinafter “○○○○○○○○”). Unlike a bad newborn baby, Defendant ○○ was “f.m.,” and “f.m., f., f., f.s., f., e., f., f., f., d., e., d., e., e., e., f., e., f., f., f., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., e., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d., d.).......

After the work hours began, Defendant 00 p.m. entered a newborn baby room from 7 p.m. to 7 p.m., Defendant 00 p.m., and 11 p.m., Defendant 00 p.m., only observed newborn baby only when they drink.

The defendant head of the defendant ○○ stated that the defendant ○○ stated that "the situation of the newborn baby was immediately missing" whenever the police and the prosecutor's office is investigated.

(5) Appraisal results and relevant medical knowledge.

- The following facts are recognized in light of the written expert testimony of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation, Kim Shin, respectively:

A) The reason for the death of a newborn baby seems to be the cause of the death of the newborn baby, which shows a large amount of acquisition and smoking in the autopsy, and it is determined that the mass acquisition and smoking certification after mass acquisition have become the cause of the death.

B) In light of the observation of the contents of white death in the above river, it can be interpreted that the newborn baby maintained its life history to the extent that it can have been rapidly milched after birth; and

C) Opinions from the storage of air against ples and cages are presumed to have caused in the course of artificial smoking interference; and

D) In light of the progress of delivery of a newborn baby as a normal view of the her mother’s birth, the her heart co-existence and non-explosive existence in the heart do not constitute a causal relationship with the death; and

(E) the opinions on the blood transfusions and maternal flavoring, the light flavoringing flavoringing flavoringing flavoringing flavoringing flavoringing flavoringing flavoringing, etc. are interpreted as opinions related to delivery, and in light of its degree, it is difficult to see as private person

(f) other diseases, traumas, and congenitals that can contest the private person cannot be seen, and when compiling the fact that there is no detection of toxic substance ingredients to be peculiar, the outline of the case, etc.:

In this case, a private person is judged as a mass transferee, Hobbebbes, which is a mass transferee, (this refers to a disease that causes death because a fetus in the after-certification group of mass acquisition, - if the fetus is faced with an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in blood, depending on any cause in the womb, the pulmonary addition may cause a severe pulmonary disorder, and thereby causes a mass transfer of in the womb. A large quantity of transferee inseminators can cause death by causing a large sum of pulmonary disorder caused by waste collection by chemical action and pulmonary disorder by a pulmonary color).

- In the event that there are symptoms of blue and respiratory difficulties to the newborn baby due to the inhalement of it, the stalthrian body shall, in order to prevent the indemnent intake of it to the maximum extent possible, in order to prevent the inhalement of it through the inhaler, and thereafter, in the supply of oxygen through the oxygen rain, it is necessary to increase the amount of oxygen supply and to carefully observe the oxygen concentration when there are the wife of the newborn baby, and there is a blue proof. Even after the supply of oxygen, if the skin of the newborn continue to be a semnant light, the balthralian body must be emitted (each stalthical body).

B. Determination

(1) Whether the Defendants’ occupational negligence exists

(A) Issues

In a medical malpractice case, it is necessary to presume that the occurrence of a result may be predicted or avoided, and that it was impossible to do so. In determining the absence of such negligence, the degree of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same duties and duties shall be based on the standard, and in such a case, the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, the specificity of medical practice, etc. shall be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do6104, Feb. 12, 2009; 2004Do486, Oct. 26, 2006; 99Do3711, Dec. 10, 199). In this case, it is examined whether the Defendants violated the Defendants’ duty of care in light of the state of newborns from childbirth to death.

(B) Determination

1) Defendant ○○○

As seen earlier, in light of the following: (a) the newborn baby was in a normal condition after the birth of the newborn baby; (b) and (c) the attitude of the Defendant ○○○○ in the case after the birth of the newborn baby, it is doubtful whether the Defendant was aware that the relevant item of the number of the newborn baby points at the time of the birth of the newborn baby was in body or written in the set of the set of the set of the set of the set of the son); and (d) the sound was the normal condition of the newborn baby, the Defendant ○○○ was in a duty to predict the fact and take follow-up measures immediately.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts, namely, the defendant's work experience as the defendant's father and the defendant's newborn baby's dysium, and the 12 to 24 hours after the birth of the newborn baby, and the fact that the defendant was aware of the fact that the birth of the newborn baby could have been delayed (the prosecutor's protocol) and that the newborn baby's dysium dysium dynasium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium 2.

2) Defendant 2 ○○

Defendant ○○○, as seen earlier, had a newborn baby die due to the respiratory suspension due to the force after the mass acquisition certification, on October 26, 2009, by negligence that did not see the newborn baby properly, such as without reporting it to the doctor even though he shows symptoms of mass acquisition after the mass acquisition certification, such as the maring light, the breath of the breath, the breath of the breath of the breath, and the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the blad

(C) Conclusion

As the Defendants’ breach of the duty of care was combined, the Defendants jointly caused the death of a newborn baby due to occupational negligence, and according to the record of the appraiser Kim Jong-sik’s autopsy report belonging to the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, it can be interpreted that the newborn baby maintained his/her life history to the extent that he/she could prompt milch after childbirth. Thus, if the Defendants did not violate the above duty of care after delivery, and the Defendants did not violate the above duty of care, and the supply of sufficient oxygen (limited to only a small amount of the oxygen supplied by both ○○ and ○○ after hearing the horses of the largest ○○○○ and raising the oxygen supplied by Scatter) or by electric power, if the Defendants were to take additional measures in accordance with the Busan Do, it is deemed that the death of a newborn baby could have been avoided.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case were sufficiently proven.

Freeboard