Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not have the authority to supplement the physician for medical care protection. Defendant did not breach his duty of care by faithfully performing his duty of supervision and education as well as by ordering dynasium dynasium at the time of the accident.

Nevertheless, the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 3 million) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examined the Defendant’s assertion of mistake in the facts, and whether the Defendant’s occupational negligence was at issue in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion based on detailed reasoning. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the evidence duly examined by the lower court, the following circumstances, i.e., (1) although the instant medical care center satisfied the statutory fixed number of medical care care assistance, and there is no authority to supplement the Defendant’s intent to care assistance, the issue in the instant case is not whether the instant medical care center has the authority to supplement the Defendant, or whether the instant medical care center needs to supplement the fixed number of medical care assistance assistance personnel, but rather whether the Defendant, who was in charge of managing and supervising the medical care assistance as the president at the time of the instant accident, has sufficient control and supervision over the provision of food to the aged with the same disability as the victim, and (2) whether the victim died of the victim from May 201 to May 20.