The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles have a duty of care to inform sick and wounded soldiers of the condition of an individual patient and their intention to resist.

It cannot be seen that the instant accident occurred due to the failure of the nursing private person B in charge to observe the bath method for the victim, who is the repayment party B, and thus, there is no substantial relation between the negligence of the defendant and the result of the injury inflicted on the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles and the circumstances properly explained by the court below, and the status and specific details of the defendant's duty (the management director in charge of education and supervision over the sick and wounded) as a whole; in particular, prior to the instant case, the defendant had a duty of care in management to inform the sick and wounded in charge of the special circumstances of the victim who was the general manager in charge of the management and supervision over the sick and wounded in the instant case, and to have B, the defendant had a duty of care in management to give special attention.

It is reasonable to consider such a duty of care, and there is also a substantial relation between negligence that has not fulfilled such duty of care and the occurrence of the result of this case.

We do not accept the Defendant’s factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

3. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

Examining the conditions of sentencing and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records and changes in the instant case, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair due to the lack of sentencing.

The defendant's argument that sentencing is unfair.