The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and B, etc. were showing the victim’s condition through monitoring in the operating room, and the victim did not have to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation once per minute due to the condition of active signs, and thus, the Defendant did not perform 100 cardiopulmonary resuscitation once per minute.

on the part of the defendant, with occupational negligence

subsection (b) of this section.

B. A situation in which one minute 100 cardiopulmonary resuscitation should have been conducted.

The result of the death could have been avoided through the implementation of 100 cardiopulmonary resuscitation once per minute in the case of ASEAN.

Therefore, there is no relationship between the negligence of the defendant and the death of the victim.

(c)

Since the maintenance and recovery of anesthesia is a specialized area of anesthesia doctors. As seen in this case, a series of processes, such as anesthesia and medical specialists, when an abnormal situation occurs, such as the introduction of various drugs and the inserting of clination, etc., and other medical personnel in the operating room fully trust the judgment of anesthesia and medical doctors, and, in principle, do so. In a case where it is trusted that anesthesia and medical specialists properly performed or taken measures to recover anesthesia and medical specialists, the principle of trust should not be applied and held liable.

The defendant was unable to trust the judgment of anesthesia and L, and it was difficult for the defendant to expect the cardiopulmonary resuscitation of 100 per minute by independent judgment at a certain point. Therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable for the defendant in accordance with the principle of trust.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the Bill of Indictment as stated in the facts charged after the trial at the time of the trial at the court below. Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any further.

There is a change in the authority of reversal as above.