The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant charged with the instant charges is a sexual surgery and doctor who had operated a hospital in the name of “C sexual outdoor department” on the 2nd floor of the Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B building in Bupyeong-gu.

Around April 27, 2010, the Defendant complained of the victim D (here, 1981 birth) after performing a prone extension operation on both sides of the sexual surgery. From May 10, 2010 to February 15, 2012, the Defendant: (a) performed pharmacologic treatment and removal of liquids on both chests; (b) in the course of treating such treatment, the Defendant neglected the victim’s duty of care to ensure that there is a tent in the treatment of the prone water; (c) neglected to perform the duty of care to ensure that there is a tent in the treatment of the prone water; and (d) neglected to perform the duty of care to ensure that there is a tent in the process of administering drugs into injection; and (d) caused the victim’s vegetable water inserted into the victim’s right chest.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim by the occupational negligence as above, on August 2016, the injury of the number of days of treatment, which changed to the right side, due to the leakage of water inside a square water due to the ceiling of the water at the right side by the foregoing occupational negligence, was caused by the melting structure of the water at the right side, and the part was changed and the part was changed.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant’s assertion by negligence caused a tent in the appearance of the Defendant, it is recognized that the Defendant’s assertion by negligence did not constitute a causal relationship between the above astronomical hole and the instant injury.

B. (1) The prosecutor indicted the Defendant on the charge that “the Defendant was charged with the Defendant that she was charged with the Defendant that she could enjoy the inner substance of the Defendant’s stream due to the rain of the Defendant’s oil reservoir.” It is unclear whether the Defendant was aware that she received certain inside the Defendant’s oil container, and that she was in charge of certain inside the Defendant’s oil container, and there is no other evidence to confirm that she recorded the upper body of the Defendant’s oil and changed the her upper body (Evidence No. 223 to 227 of the evidence record). The content of the Defendant’s written request for appraisal by the E Association (No. 223 to 227 of the evidence record) is “the latest four households or five households of the Defendant’s oil container container of the Defendant’s oil container of the Defendant’s oil container of the Defendant’s oil container of the Defendant’s oil.”