The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence, such as the records of the progress of the nursing for the victim, the statement of the victim, the statement of the head of the nursing department H, etc., of the summary of the grounds for appeal, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant neglected his/her duty of care in the course of performing his/her duties, thereby resulting in injury to the victim

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous.

2. The lower court determined the following facts: (a) i.e., the circumstances acknowledged by the record of the instant case: (b) two victims hospitalized in a convalescent hospital were examined by the victim’s first detection on June 10, 2016; (c) the Defendant was seated in a wheelchairs so as to attract the victim at around June 10, 2016; and (d) there was no special circumstance other than the wheel breath because the right bridge was laid down on the wheelchairs; (e) the victim could not have known of all the reasons; and (e) the victim was indicted only for the Defendant because it was difficult to communicate with the victim; (e) the victim was found that there was no first 6-year old tyrasium or buck, and (e) the victim was found to have been infected with the victim’s first 6-year tynasium, and thus, it was difficult to readily conclude that the victim was infected with the victim’s first 6-year venasium or venasium.