Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A as a doctor of F Hospital, through four times in total from January 26, 2015 to April 30, 2015, at the F Hospital operating room located in Sungnam-si G in Sungnam-si, caused the occurrence of a merger, such as a back-to-hand autopsy outside the right-hand eye and a back-to-hand eye fluor, and a re-re-routing operation, snow tin correction, and a half-to-face fluoring operation, while continuing to be repeated before the recovery of the part of the right-hand eye operation.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of each police officer against the defendant A;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Data on photographs of victim parts, photographs of victim parts, diagnostic records, copies of medical records, and medical self-documents;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a medical examination and treatment table, a copy of each medical examination and treatment data, specifications of medical examination and treatment, and a copy of an outpatient medical records;

1. Article 268 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 268 of the Criminal Act chosen a penalty, and the choice of fines

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the degree of negligence by Defendant A, the victim’s surgery, the victim’s surgery, and physical and mental factors, appears to have influenced the victim’s merger evidence. In addition, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other factors of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the various factors of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as indicated in the records and arguments.

Defendant

Judgment on the argument A and the defense counsel

1. Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) has sufficiently explained that prior to underwater alcohol, there may arise a complication, such as the king force of the past and the patient’s physical brupt fluence, etc., and the victim has sufficiently been aware of this fact, and prepared a written consent for an operation, and fulfilled the ordinary duty of care at the time of the operation, and thus, Defendant A fulfilled its duty of care at the general level of medicine.