beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Taking into account the location relevance between the part of the Defendant’s course of the instant appeal and the part of the victim’s course of the instant appeal, and the temporal relationship between the Defendant’s medical treatment and the judgment of the trupture, the causal relationship may be acknowledged between the Defendant’s act and the victim’s injury, and the Defendant’s occupational negligence is also acknowledged.
Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, which erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In full view of the following facts, circumstances, and relevant legal principles acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below’s judgment as to the grounds for appeal, it is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the defendant did not fulfill his duty of care to the extent required for a universal oriental medical doctor engaged in the same work and occupational category, and that the victim’s injury, such as the left-hand singingingle, was inflicted on the victim.
Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and thus, rejected the Prosecutor’s argument.
A. In order for a physician to be negligent in a medical accident, it is recognized that the doctor could have predicted or avoided the occurrence of the outcome, even though he could have predicted or avoided it. In determining the existence of negligence, the standard for the degree of general attention of ordinary workers engaged in the same work and occupation shall be based on the standard, and the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, and the specificity of the medical practice shall be taken into account.
This legal doctrine also applies to herb doctors.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10104, Apr. 14, 2011). In addition, the facts charged in a criminal trial are proved by a prosecutor.