The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and fines of three million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of two years and fines.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A) 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (a) - Defendant A (a) - Defendant A decided to conceal the fact of an accident by Defendant D, and provided communication that Defendant D’s approval is necessary for the deletion of the video reading reading result in the situation where the discharge summary and death diagnosis was revised accordingly, and mediating this. Thus, the lower court’s judgment that recognized the joint principal offender’s liability beyond aiding and abetting is unreasonable.

B) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and three million won of fine) is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) Defendant B’s drafting and misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (i.e., false diagnosis) and Defendant C’s exercise did not fall on the floor of the her flag and did not know the her flag.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the cause of the death of the instant infant was the ductal and the ductal transfusions caused by the instant accident, and there is no proximate causal link between the instant infant’s death by Defendant C and the instant infant’s death.

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on the opinion of U and V by the witness U and V of the lower court, found that the cause of death of the instant infant, which is contrary to the result of the appraisal of medical records by the expert witness adopted by the lower court, was erroneous, on the grounds that the cause of death of the instant infant occurred in the so-called pelle and the so-called pelle-out transfusion due to an abortion, etc., and on such premise, determined that Defendant B’s death diagnosis report

The Defendant, in violation of his duty to report and interfered with the inspection of the body body and the duty to report, determined that the instant accident and the instant body body flag, the body body flag of the Plaintiff’s body flag, the body flag of the instant body flag, the body flag of the Plaintiff’s body flag, the body flag of the Plaintiff’s body flag of the instant body fla

Nevertheless, it seems that the defendant was aware that the death of the birth of this case was changed.