The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, although the victim was found to have been proved to have been proved to have been caused by occupational negligence in the course of the defendant's surgery, and even though the defendant was able to fully recognize the fact that the victim died, the court below acquitted the defendant of the charges of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination:

A. In order to recognize a doctor’s negligence in a medical malpractice case, it should be possible to recognize that the occurrence of the outcome could have been predicted or avoided, and that the degree of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same work and duties should be the standard for determining the existence of such negligence, and the level of general medical science, the medical environment and conditions at the time of the accident, and the specificity of medical practice should be taken into account.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do486 Decided October 26, 2006, etc.). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the defendant was negligent in performing an operation, the defendant's safinites in the vertebrate of the victim's vertebrates were paid to the victim in the course of performing the operation, and the safins were leaked through the tent, and the victim's safins occurred due to the safinites inside the safin connection with the safinites of the victim's safins.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., complications that may prevent the operation at the time of the operation, does not cause special problems on the ground that there is a tent of the electric sponse, and the sponse bee and sprinking cane and bee and sprinked in the shape of a pipe around 3 cm in diameter.