2016No4927 A. Occupational failure, etc.

(b) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.2.(b) C Hospital

Both parties

Transitions (prosecutions) and misappropriations (public trials)

Law Firm Cheongn Law Firm (For the defendant)

Attorney Kim Jong-chul

Law Firm Woo (for the defendant B)

Attorney Jeon Tae-gu, and Excellent Research

Busan District Court Decision 2015Gohap5624 Decided December 8, 2016

June 21, 2019

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million. In the event that Defendant A and B fail to pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting each of the KRW 100,000 into one day.

Defendant A and B shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines. The violation of the Medical Service Act against Defendant B among the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the non-guilty part among the judgments shall be publicly notified.

Defendant A shall bear the costs of appraisal among the costs of lawsuit.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) In light of the fact that the victim had undergone the CT test using the steering system two times prior to the instant case, but did not have a sensitive reaction, and that there was a sulphism, such as high blood pressure and blood transfusion, etc., it cannot be concluded that the cause of the victim’s death was a part of Aalopia (popic telegraph reaction caused by the exempted reaction) due to the steering side effect. (B) After examining the victim’s past inspection history, etc., the Defendant A decided that the victim did not have any adverse effect on the steering system and carried out the CT test using the steering system. Accordingly, Defendant A did not have any occupational negligence.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) Occupational Death part

(1) In light of the fact that the victim had undergone the CT test using the steering system two times prior to the instant case, but did not have a sensitive reaction, and that there was a streking for the victim, such as high blood pressure and blood transfusion, etc., the victim cannot be readily concluded that the cause of the victim’s death was an Abalsia due to the steering side effect.

(2) After examining the side effects of the steering system by Defendant A, the chief doctor of the victim, Defendant A decided to conduct a CT inspection using the steering system to the victim, and Defendant B conducted a CT inspection on the victim according to the manuals prescribed by Defendant A’s prescription. As such, there was no occupational negligence on the part of Defendant B.

B) Parts of violation of the Medical Service Act

Defendant B, while the nurse connects the victim with the injection and the dials, attempted to manipulate the operation pressing of the dials injecting the dials into which the doctor has determined in advance. This is not included in the scope of duties of the radiationr that can be performed under the doctor’s guidance pursuant to Article 2(1)2 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, and thus does not constitute non-licensed medical practice.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable and unfair. It does not constitute an unlicensed medical practice for Defendant B to manipulate the operation pressing of the steering gear, such as Defendant C Hospital’s above B. (b)(1).

(d) A prosecutor;

Each sentence imposed on Defendant A and B by the lower court is too unhued and unjust.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. Part of occupational death (Defendant A, B)

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below found Defendant A and B guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is reasonable to view the victim’s causes of death as a side effect due to the operation of the Cho Young-gu and that the defendant A and B can sufficiently be recognized, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

2) The judgment of this Court

A) Presumed facts

According to the court below's decision and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) Defendant A is a medical specialist outside of C Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “instant hospital”) and Defendant B is a radiation doctor of the instant hospital.

(2) On February 201, 201, the victim received a mix cancer surgery from Defendant A at a division outside the instant hospital, and the Defendant A had to conduct a regular transitional observation and tracking inspection to verify whether the victim had a recurrence of cancer.

(3) Accordingly, on January 24, 2011, and September 5, 2011, the victim was subject to a group CT inspection using a steering system, and there was no special opinion (hereinafter referred to as the "First CT inspection" on January 24, 201, and the "Secondary CT inspection" on September 5, 201). (4) On November 29, 2012, the victim lost consciousness by using a steering system in the video department of the instant hospital (hereinafter referred to as "third CT inspection"), and released the victim from the hospital on the same day after receiving first aid, such as intake of oxygen in an emergency room. At the time, the victim's diagnosis or side effects of the instant hospital's emergency surgery are doubtful as an "emergency diagnosis or side effects" of the victim.

(5) After that, information was registered to F (F, C Hospital Information System), which is the integrated computer system of the instant hospital, that "as a result of conducting a group CT inspection using a steering system with respect to the victim, there was an adverse side effect on the steering system."

(6) On December 9, 2013, the victim sought a division outside of the instant hospital for the purpose of observation and tracking of progress on December 9, 2013, and the Defendant A decided that the victim will conduct a uniform CT inspection using the steering system.

(7) Accordingly, on January 8, 2014, at around 09:10, the medical personnel of the instant hospital put the cT test into the victim and conduct the cT test (hereinafter “fourth CT test”). On the same day immediately after the 4th test, the medical personnel of the instant hospital provided the victim with first aid, such as respiratory distress and chromatic resuscitation, and then transferred the victim to the emergency room at around 09:46 on the same day.

(8) On January 8, 2014, the victim was transferred to a serious patient room and was under medical treatment, but died around January 9, 2014.

B) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as follows, it is reasonable to view that the cause of the victim’s death was the side effect of the early medication. Therefore, this part of the allegation by Defendant A and B is without merit.

(1) After the victim’s death, the death diagnosis report prepared by the doctor G of the instant hospital was written by the doctor G of the instant hospital on the ground of death, and G was written by the reason that the 'multi-scopic long-term part by the shock of an Abopic shocks' due to the use of an Abopic system was written in the lower court’s court to the effect that the cause of the victim’s death was determined as a side effect by the c

(2) Defendant A recognized the fact that the victim died due to the sudden side effects in the interview place with his bereaved family members, and even during the course of the preparation of the above death diagnosis report, Defendant A stated in the police investigation that the cause of the victim’s death is presumed to have been caused by the sudden side effects (Evidence No. 2 Book No. 54 page). In addition, Defendant A stated in the police investigation that the cause of the victim’s death should be presumed to have been caused by the sudden side effects (Evidence No. 54 page 54 of the evidence record). (3) The appraisal by the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency on the symptoms that the victim occurred immediately after the 4th CT public prosecutor, and that there was a similar symptoms in the past after the 4th public prosecutor’s early administration, Defendant A expressed his opinion that “ unless there is a clear difference in causation, it shall be deemed as a acute harmful reaction by the

(4) As to the request for appraisal of the J Association's medical records, the victim had the medical records that occurred around the room and the snow immediately after the third CT examination, and the second stop was found immediately after the fourth CT examination. Considering these circumstances, it is reasonable to view the victim's low-level situation as an Abscopic shock arising from the side effects of an Abscopic shock.

C) Whether Defendant A’s occupational negligence

In order to recognize a doctor's negligence in a medical malpractice case, it is necessary to anticipate the occurrence of the outcome, and to recognize that the occurrence of the outcome was not possible even if it was possible to avoid, and the determination of the existence of such negligence requires the standard for the degree of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same duties and duties. In such case, the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the environment and conditions of medical care, the specificity of medical practice, etc. should be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7070, Apr. 29

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed by the court below, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A was negligent in the course of performing a substitute examination by reviewing the past medical records, such as the victim's early side effects, or the CT inspection by using a steering system, even if it has an occupational duty to take measures to prevent side effects, and thus, Defendant A neglected to perform a CT inspection using a steering system for the victim. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit. (1) The victim was transferred to the emergency room of the hospital of this case after the 3th CT examination and received first aid after being transferred to the emergency room of the hospital of this case. Since the physician of the first medical department and doctor of the victim diagnosed the victim with the victim as the "Acecececececeine by the early stage of the 3th examination," it is reasonable to view the victim's opinion on the request for the examination of medical records by the JT association as a harmful side effect after the victim's 3th examination after the 3th examination.

(2) The side effects of early medication are highly likely to occur to patients with the past history of the early harmful reaction, patients with low-income diseases such as old or heart diseases, etc. In the case of victims, the third CT prosecutor showed the side effects of early medication. As such, Defendant A needs to be more careful in determining whether to implement CT prosecutor using the early medication against the victims.

(3) On the part of the instant hospital, the following information were recorded: “The result of the Doring CT inspection using a steering system to F, which led to the occurrence of a steering side effect,” and the doctor in charge decided whether to conduct the CT inspection using a steering system against the victim, the pop-up shop was put up so as not to mislead such fact.

(4) As to a patient who has experienced abnormal reaction after the early stage of the CT test using a steering chemical, determination as to whether to continue the CT test using a steering chemical or to implement another alternative filming according to the gravity of the abnormal reaction is made. Generally, it appears that the implementation of another alternative method would be the most safe, and even if the CT prosecutor using a steering chemical finds that it is not avoided to verify the progress of a disease, he/she shall take preventive measures, such as changing a steering system or implementing an electric treatment, such as the eternist or Switzerland, etc.

However, the defendant A decided to conduct the 4th CT inspection using the steering system without examining whether the alternative inspection was conducted or taking preventive measures to prevent the early side effects without ascertaining the victim's side effects after the 3th CT inspection.

(5) Defendant A asserts to the effect that there is no alternative means as a result of accurate tracking process only through the CT shooting using a steering system. However, for the purpose of understanding the recurrence of a string cancer, transition, etc., Defendant A’s aforementioned assertion is difficult to accept, since Defendant A’s implementation of an early wave test, PE (Positony) test, MRI test, etc. in addition to the CT shooting using a steering system according to the patient’s situation.

D) Whether Defendant B’s occupational negligence

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed in the lower court’s reasoning, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B had a causal relationship between Defendant B’s occupational negligence and the victim’s death, even though he neglected to report it to the doctor or the doctor in charge of video work, and Defendant B’s occupational negligence and the victim’s death without merit. Accordingly, this part of the allegation is without merit.

(1) Prior to the enforcement of the fourth CT inspection, Defendant B confirmed that the victim’s medical record of the victim of F had a side effect on the early stage of the 4th CT inspection, Defendant B had a warning window that “the side effect on the early stage” had been registered. However, without having sought from the doctor of image department or the doctor of the cT, Defendant B conducted a cT inspection by administering the cT inspection to the victim

(2) During the police investigation, I, a professor of the film department of the instant hospital, stated that according to the CT film protocol of the instant hospital, “the radiation company ought to be instructed by inquiring of the doctor in charge if it confirms the above warning phrase (Evidence No. 2 Book No. 1 & No. 81 of the evidence record),” and that “the radiation company’s radiation company’s radiation department work manual in this court shall ask the doctor in charge, etc., for the confirmation of the side effect of the radiation company’s radiation control. According to the film and work manual of the instant hospital, I, a professor of the film department of the instant hospital, stated that “the radiation company must share the content of the warning book with each other” (the page No. 20 of the witness examination record of W).

(3) Prior to the instant case, Defendant B made an inquiry at an investigative agency by communicating with the radiation company or the outer room where the warning window on the side effects of crypical agents was damaged. However, at the time of the instant case, Defendant B stated to the effect that “the cT inspection was conducted on the ground that the other radiation company was in a state of unfolding the crypants, and that the cT inspection was conducted on the ground that the side effects of cryp agents generated by the victim were minor shock reaction.”

(4) As seen earlier, after the third CT test, the victim suffered side effects such as de facto, visual, etc., and the defendant A decided to conduct the fourth CT test for the victim under the circumstance that the defendant did not accurately grasp such facts. If the defendant B instructed the defendant A to do so, the defendant A would have been able to review the implementation of the alternative test for the victim and the establishment of measures to prevent the side effects of early operation.

B. Violation of the Medical Service Act (Defendant B and C Hospital)

1) Summary of the facts charged

A) On January 8, 2014, Defendant B independently determined the amount of early operation and the method of operation of a cT shooting in the CT inspector room located in Seo-gu Busan, Busan, without a license to conduct a medical act, and made an operation of a cT medication by the method of pressinging the cT medication after connecting it to the tubes connected to the bloodline.

B) Defendant C Hospital’s employee, at the time and place indicated in the foregoing paragraph (a), committed the above violation regarding the duties of Defendant C Hospital at the time and place.

2) The judgment of the court below

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant B and C of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the act of Defendant B, a radiation company, to put the body of the patient, is legally prohibited.

3) The judgment of this Court

A) Relevant statutes, etc.

Article 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act provides that "no person, other than a medical person, shall conduct any medical practice, and no person shall conduct any medical practice other than a licensed medical person," and Article 2 (1) of the same Act provides that "medical person" shall be "medical doctor, dentist, oriental medical doctor, midwife or nurse who has obtained a license from the Minister of Health and Welfare".

Meanwhile, Article 1 of the former Medical Technicians, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 14219, May 29, 2016; hereinafter referred to as "medical technician") provides that "the purpose of this Act is to contribute to the improvement of public health and medical services by prescribing necessary matters concerning the qualifications, licenses, etc. of medical technicians, medical affairs recorders, and opticians," and Articles 1-2 subparagraph 1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act provide that "medical technicians shall be those engaged in medical or chemical tests under the instruction of medical doctors or dentists," and Article 1-2 subparagraph 1 and 2 of the same Act provides that "the kinds of medical technicians shall be clinical paths, radiological technicians, medical technicians, dental technicians, and dental technicians," and Article 3 of the same Act provides that "the scope and limits of duties of medical technicians, medical affairs recorders, and opticians shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26130, Mar. 3, 2015). 2015.

According to the above, medical practice can be performed only by medical professionals. However, medical practice is permitted under the Medical Technicians Act, and it is permitted for those who are deemed to have the ability to confirm, determine and deal with the human body reaction caused by medical practice in the relevant field, and allow them to conduct medical or chemical tests under the instruction of medical doctors and dentists. However, it is limited to the medical technicians system and allow them to conduct part of medical practice within the limited scope of medical practice under the Medical Technicians Act. As to a specific part of the medical practice limited to only medical professionals, which is unlikely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health, the pertinent medical practice should be deemed to have obtained knowledge and experience about the risks, etc. that may cause harm to human life, body, or public health, and allow them to conduct medical practice within the limited scope of medical practice under the instruction of medical doctors (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do2014, Aug. 23, 2002).

B) the facts of recognition

According to the court below's decision and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) In the past, when CT inspection is conducted, he/she injects it to the patient by means of beer and beer, but in the past, he/she generally uses the method of injecting it to the patient by using the steering gear (otoro projector). He/she is a device that injects it to the heart, blood, and ornamental beer and can inject it into the steering gear with an accurate time and pressure.

(2) The C Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”) has set the standards for the volume and operating speed of a steering system for each prosecutor, taking into account the CT shooting level, patient’s body weight, age level, etc., taking into account in advance, and accordingly, the amount, operating speed, etc. of a steering system shall be determined in accordance with the said standards. However, if a child or body is abnormal or large, it will be adjusted according to the decision of the doctor.

(3) The instant hospital is subject to CT prosecutor using a steering system in accordance with the following procedures: (i) ascertaining the patient’s condition through literature or information registered with F, the necessity of the inspection, the side effects of steering agents, etc.; and (ii) determine whether to implement CT inspection using a steering system for the patient, taking into comprehensive account the need of the inspection; and (iii) if the patient wishes on the scheduled medical examination date, the nurse sticks the patient’s emotional beer at the patient’s air room with the cryp and connects the cryp to the cryp, and then fixed the connected part with the cryp in the tape. (iii) The doctor of the department of image sets out in advance the cryp and the crypology in a computer, and then sets up the crypology in advance on the screen screen, and then connect the crypine to the crypinepine injecting system with the cryp of the patient.

After the completion of the 6th examination, the radiation source shall remove the ray connected to the rayer, send the patient to the atmosphere, and the nurse shall remove the rayer in the atmosphere from the atmosphere.

(4) Defendant B also engaged in the act of manipulating the operation pressing of the steering gear set at the speed of the operation of the steering gear set in accordance with the aforementioned procedure, with a view to pre-determination of the film’s department and the doctor of the image.

(5) In the case of the instant hospital’s “cattop protocol”, in the case of the type CT prosecutor, the number of 10 square meters is basically to be counted at the speed of 2 cm per early, and the “cating administration policy” in the “catching administration policy” in the “catching administration policy” shall be implemented in the same manner as that of the above protocol, but the total number of cating agents shall not exceed 150 square meters. Accordingly, at the time of the instant hospital’s inspection into the victim, the Defendant B sent the victim with 100 square meters at the speed of 2 cm per early. Meanwhile, on January 10, 2017, the K Association asked the Ministry of Health and Welfare as follows.

Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act provides that a radiation engineer shall handle ion and stopy radiation, conduct a nuclear examination and medical image diagnosis device using radioactive isotopes, handle stopy diagnostic instruments, select radiation equipment and accessory equipment, and conduct the duties of medical technicians under the direction of a medical doctor or a dentist.When a radiation engineer conducts a teth inspection, injecting it into a steering engineer, it is deemed that a radiation engineer merely operates the radioactive engineer under the instruction of a medical doctor when a radiation engineer decides differently from the general method of injecting it, and since a radioactive engineer can be seen as a radioactive device and accessory equipment management prescribed in Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act.

In addition, the Ministry of Health and Welfare responded to the fact inquiry of this court to the same purpose as the above reply, and the main contents are as follows.

If a doctor participates in the establishment of a steering system and a protocol, it is judged that a radiation company has performed the relevant duties under the guidance of the doctor. In addition, the term "the guidance of the doctor" means that the doctor is in the same medical room or is in the medical institution that can be controlled at least by the same physician, but generally, the doctor must coexist in the same medical room or in the medical institution that can be supervised by the guidance. ○ past CT inspection was implemented by the method of beer using the injection machine. This does not fall under the scope of the duties of the radiation company, which is an sed medical practice.

Although this interpretation is based on the authoritative interpretation, it is necessary to interpret the function of the medical device in accordance with improved functions due to the development of medical technology, etc., taking into account the purpose of legislation.At present, the securing of the bloodline for the early administration of patients should be performed by the nurse(s) under the direction and supervision of the doctor, and it is not included in the scope of duties of the radiation company.

C) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, finz. Acknowledgement of the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier.

The following facts or circumstances (i.e., ① the volume, type, speed, etc. of steering agents is determined by the steering gear which has previously agreed upon by the doctor of the image, taking into account the purpose, age, etc. of the prosecutor; ② Defendant B, at the time of the inspection of CT for the victim, put the victim into the speed of 20 meters per early 2,00 square meters; the victim appears not to fall under the case where the victim’s body weight is about 165cm, about 70 km adult with the radiation, and it is difficult to adjust the volume of the steering gear to secure a cryer for the CT examination using radiation; ④ The act of injecting the steering gear by the doctor of the Ministry of Health and Welfare is not the case where the doctor of the medical institution determined to engage in the work of injecting the radiation under the direction of the doctor of the operation of the cryptic system; ④ The act of injecting the radiation by the doctor of the cryptic system is not the case where the doctor of the medical institution determined to engage in the operation of the radiation.

Defendant B and C Hospital’s argument on this part is with merit.

3. The judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant A and the prosecutor (the defendant A part) on the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant A and the prosecutor (the defendant A part) caused side effects on the victim immediately after the third CT inspection. Thus, in deciding whether to implement the fourth CT inspection, the method of alternative inspection is examined or the measures to prevent the side effects of the operation, which led to the death of the victim by allowing the victim to implement the CT inspection using the steering system by neglecting it. In light of the circumstances, contents, and result of the crime, etc., the relevant crime is heavy. Accordingly, the victim's bereaved family members suffered serious mental suffering. Nevertheless, the defendant A denies the crime up to the appellate trial.

However, Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment. After the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, Defendant A expressed that the victim’s bereaved family members do not want the punishment of the above defendant by mutual consent with the victim’s bereaved family members.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, including the age, environment, family relationship, motive of the crime, means and result of the crime, etc. of Defendant A, the sentencing of the lower court against Defendant A is deemed unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The appeal by the defendant A and C Hospital and the violation of the Medical Service Act by the defendant B are with merit. As the court below rendered a single sentence by treating the violation of the Medical Service Act by the defendant B and the crime resulting in death by occupational negligence as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining both of the grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing with respect to the defendant B, and the following decision is rendered after the pleading (as long as the appeal by the prosecutor against the defendant A is without merit, but the judgment of the court below is reversed by accepting the appeal by the defendant A, the prosecutor'

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

Criminal facts

Defendant A was the doctor working as a professor at a hospital located in Seo-gu, Busan as an outside and teaching staff at the hospital, and the victim E (the age of 78 at the time of medical treatment). Defendant B was the radiation worker working at the above hospital. On February 17, 2011, the victim was a captain of the above hospital. On November 29, 201, the victim was under a captain cancer surgery by Defendant A, and immediately after the completion of the CT test to administer a steering system for regular medical examination on November 29, 201, the victim was killed due to Anhylaxis (Anthlaxis) under the steering system and received medical treatment in the emergency room. The patient was registered with the medical information of the victim on the above facts, and the victim’s name could have immediately been given a warning that the victim could have an adverse effect upon the victim’s search.

Defendant A had a duty of care to consider other alternative means, such as the victim’s early operation side effects, etc., or to take measures to prevent the side effects of the early operation even if the CT inspection was conducted, Defendant A had a duty of care to consider measures to prevent the side effects of the early operation of the CT inspection. Since Defendant B confirmed the side effects of the early operation of the CT inspection on the victim in F, Defendant B had a duty of care to immediately inform the doctor or the doctor in charge of image and to have different instructions.

Nevertheless, Defendant A and B neglected warning of the victim's early side effects registered in F in violation of the above duty of care, and Defendant A recommended the victim outside of the above hospital and the clinic to undergo a regular medical examination after about one month from December 9, 2013, and had the victim conduct a CT inspection that is needed to conduct a regular examination. Defendant B conducted the CT inspection with the victim on January 8, 2014 at the video examination room of the above hospital without reporting the victim's early side effects to the doctor, etc., while conducting the CT inspection with the video examination, Defendant A and B conducted the CT inspection without reporting the victim's early side effects to the doctor, etc., thereby resulting in the side effects of the CT inspection again, and the victim died with the sexual long-term department on January 9, 2014.

Defendant A and B jointly caused the death of the victim due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence admitted by this Court is as follows, except for addition of the following evidence to the summary of the evidence of the judgment below, and it is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure

“1. The witness’s statement in this Court 1. The suspect interrogation protocol of each police officer against Defendant A and Defendant B

1. Each investigation report (number 7,13);

1. Recording notes;

1. Results of entrustment of appraisal of medical records to the chief of the J Association of this Court, and the application of statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 268 and 30 (Selection of Fine) of the Criminal Act and the applicable Articles 268 and 30 (Selection of Fine) of the Criminal Act;

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A and B: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A and B: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Bearing litigation costs;

Defendant A: Article 191(1) and the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Reasons for sentencing: The scope of applicable sentences by law: each fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 20,000;

2. The sentencing criteria are not applicable since the range of fines according to the sentencing criteria have been selected.

3. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant A

The sentence shall be determined as per the order, taking into account various sentencing conditions as examined in the aforementioned determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

B. Defendant B

Defendant B confirmed that there was a side effect of the steering system against the victim in F before the CT Public Prosecutor’s implementation, but without referring to video department, doctor, or doctor, and administered the steering system to the victim, thereby causing the death of the victim. The liability for the crime in this case is not easy. It appears that the victim’s bereaved family members suffered severe mental distress due to the crime in this case.

However, Defendant B, the main agent of the judgment of the court below, believed that Defendant A confirmed the relevant warning, examined the relevant warning, and believed that he/she instructed the business, and administered the steering system to the victim. Defendant B did not have any history of criminal punishment. In addition, Defendant B, after the sentence of the court below, expressed his/her intention that the victim’s bereaved family members do not want the above punishment.

In addition, the age, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. of Defendant B shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions shown in the case records and pleadings.

The acquittal portion

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Medical Service Act by Defendant B and C is as stated in Article 2-2(b)(1) of the said Act, and this constitutes cases where there is no proof of crime as seen in Article 2-2(b)3 of the said Act. Therefore, the acquittal is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(

The judges of the presiding judge and South Korea

Judgment of the Supreme Court

Judges Lee Jin