The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant, as a medical doctor of this case, was visiting the residence of the victim D (74 years of age) from around December 14, 2009 to Sintitu City C 203, and was committing the act of medical care, such as bathing, ventilation, meals, etc., against the victim of the victim of this case who, alone, could not move on his/her own. On June 23, 2010, the Defendant violated his/her duty of care to inform the visiting nurse E who treated the victim of this fact at the time of the discovery of the booming points at the right end of the booming, thereby causing 100 to the right part of the victim, thereby making the victim suffer from the 2nd part of the victim’s 2ndromothy. In the end, the Defendant breached his/her duty of care to prevent proper treatment of the victim’s booming part, such as informing him/her of the fact.

2. The judgment is based on the evidence of the prosecutor's submission consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, such as D's statement, accusation statement, investigation report (to hear the statement of a witness), investigation report (to hear the interview E-mail), and the case of the appraisal commission meeting. According to the evidence above, it is acknowledged that the Defendant was well aware that the string of D's string was done by using a string without properly disinfecting part of D's string, and that the string could have been continued.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the defendant's statement, the result of the defendant's hearing of the professional examiner's opinion, and the records of this court, i.e., that the complainants did not appeal for particular pain when the defendant brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut.