2006No690 A. Occupationally Injury

B. Violation of the Blood Management Act

1. (a) A (n) and free from office (former head of ○○ blood center);

Seoul Residence

Permanent Address Incheon

2. (a) B ( South Korea), and expert members of the Korean Red Cross ○○ Office.

Busan

Permanent Masan City

3. (a) . (b) C ( South Korea) and the head of the secretariat of the Korean Red Cross 00.

Daejeon

Permanent Address Daejeon

4. (a) . (b) D ( South Korea) and the Korean Red Cross 00 expert members.

Gwangju Residence

Permanent Madcheon City

5. (a) E ( South Korea) and ○○ blood center;

Residential ancient cities

Permanent Masan City

6.B.F (ma) and ○○ blood center (former ○ blood center)

Residential Jeju

Permanent Chungcheongnam-Nam

7.B.G (Nam) and ○○ blood center (former ○ blood center)

Housing Seoul

Permanent Address Seoul

8. President of H ( South Korea) and Blood G (former head of ○○ Blood Center).

Seoul Residence

Permanent Address Daegu

9. I ( South Korea), ○○ blood center;

Seoul Residence

Permanent Address Seoul

10. b. J ( South Korea) and the Secretary General of the Memorial Service of the Korean National Red Cross in 100.

○○ blood center head)

Housing marju City

Permanent Madcheon City

11. (a) K ( South Korea), company members (former ○○ Blood Center Director);

Accommodation-si

Permanent Yong-Nam

12. (a) Inspections and employees of L (n) and ○ blood banks;

Housing Ansan-si

Permanent Address Seoul

13.A.M (M) and ○○ blood center supply division (the chief of the Jeon○ blood center inspection division)

Daejeon

Permanent Chungcheongbuk

14.(a)N (Nam), ○○ blood center inspection officers and employees;

Residential Cheongju

Permanent domicile Gyeongnam

15. A. ○ (Inn) and the Director of the Inspection Division of the ○○ Blood Center;

Gwangju Residence

Permanent Yong-Nam

16. (a) P ( South Korea) and free from office (former ○○ Blood Center Director);

Residence Jeonnam

Permanent Yong-Nam

17. A. Q (n) and ○○ blood center inspection and employees (the previous ○ blood center inspection division);

(Personnel)

Seoul Residence

Permanent Jeonju City

18. (a) R ( South Korea) and the Director of the Inspection Division of the ○ Blood Center;

Housing Daegu

Permanent Kimcheon-si

Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, Q, Q and Inspection

○○, wested ○

Law Firm ○○, Attorneys Jeon Soo-soo (Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G)

H, I, J, M,O, R

Attorney Park Jong-young (for Defendant K and S)

Law Firm ○○, Attorneys Shin ○-○ (for Defendant N)

Attorneys Yoon-young (Law No. 1000,000,000)

Attorneys Lee Dong-○ (Presiding Justice for Defendant Q)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Kadan4685 Delivered on February 9, 2006

August 29, 2006

Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, N, Q and prosecutor's appeal are all dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal of this case

A. Defendants (1) mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J (A)

① As to the violation of the Blood Management Act by the above Defendants, each blood center of this case is merely a separate independent business entity, but is merely a department belonging to the Korean Red Cross. The above Defendants did not have any budget and personnel rights as the head of the above department, and there is no authority to enact and implement business regulations. However, blood management, such as blood collection, etc., was performed only in accordance with the business goals set at the head office and the business regulations established at the head office in accordance with the approved budget. The head of the medical management office, who is a medical personnel, has been in charge of conducting blood management, but only reported the current status of blood withdrawal and blood donation solicitation to the head of the blood center on a monthly basis, and it cannot be deemed that the above Defendants were "the person who manages and operates a blood center" as stipulated in Article 19 of the former Blood Management Act (amended by Act No. 7145 of Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter the same). In addition, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on blood management, which was in violation of the rules of evidence.

② As to Defendant A, B, C, D, and E’s occupational injury, the Defendants breached their duty of care by inquiring each blood donor’s previous blood donation history and the previous blood donation test results at the time of collecting each of the instant blood, and furthermore, in the UNFCCC system, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. (b) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the facts.

The sentence of the court below sentenced to the above Defendants is too unreasonable and unfair. (2) Defendant N (A) mistake of fact

Although Defendant N did not read other display boats instead of reading other display boats on one 1, which had the body of Park ○-il, a person who is a trainee of B-type hepatitis at the time and place specified in paragraph (3) of Article 2 of the judgment below, at the same time and place as indicated in the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts in violation of the rules of evidence and thereby convicted Defendant N of the facts charged of this case.

(B) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if it is not so, the sentence of the court below that sentenced Defendant N is too unreasonable.

(3) Defendant Q Q

Defendant Q did not perform blood tests jointly with Kim Jong-out and carried out their blood tests. Thus, it is possible that the above Defendant did not have to conduct tests on his own. Furthermore, at the time of the instant case, the fundamental errors in the EA itself, which are the method of test of e-mail B, in light of the e-mail test (EA), the test e-mail itself, the degree of errors within the permitted range of error, the possibility of errors within the permissible range of error, and the possibility of infection C-type infection by other route of the victims of blood transfusion, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that the above Defendant was erroneous as described in each subparagraph of paragraph (d) of Article 2 of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment while conducting tests on their respective blood tests. In addition, considering the level, blood test environment and conditions at the time of the instant medical examination, and the specificity of blood tests, etc., the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles that found the Defendant guilty or did not have any possibility to avoid this occurrence.

B. As to the guilty portion of the lower judgment, the Defendants were the head of each of the blood banks of this case with the duty of care as stated in paragraph (a) of Article 2 of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment. Moreover, through thorough education and training for inspectors, the Defendants must thoroughly supervise whether all the procedures and standard work procedures required by the Blood Management Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Blood Management Act, etc., and the guidelines for the management of blood banks, etc., comply with the duty of care to prevent errors, such as re-verification of the results of the inspection or comparison of the past inspection, and to improve the operation of the inspection room and the inspection environment. However, the lower court erred only by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the duty of care of the head of the blood center, or by misapprehending the facts, thereby recognizing the Defendants as eligible for the duty of care under the Blood Management Act.

(B) The sentence of the lower court imposed on Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, N, and Q is too uneasible and unfair. (2) As to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment (A) as to Defendant L

Defendant L did not inquire of blood donors’ blood donation experience under the Blood Management Act and previous blood donation inspection results at the time of inspection in order to ensure the accuracy of the examination. In addition, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the above Defendant’s negligence or failing to exhaust such internal guidelines, and thereby acquitted the aforementioned Defendants. (B) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the examination conducted by the director of blood center in charge of examination to ensure that the inspectors are not in charge of inspection to ensure the accuracy of the examination results, and to ensure that the inspectors are not in charge of blood management inspection at the time of inspection without complying with the aforementioned examination results by checking methods, such as the examination methods conducted by the director of blood center in charge of examination to ensure that the inspectors are not in charge of inspection to ensure the accuracy of the examination results. Furthermore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the examination methods to ensure that the inspectors are not in charge of examination results at the time of inspection by checking methods, such as the examination methods conducted by the director of blood center in charge of examination to prevent the accuracy of examination methods.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J

First of all, the above defendants' violation of the Blood Management Act, and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below. Each of the blood banks of this case is operated independently by the Korean Red Cross as an affiliated agency of the blood company headquarters established by obtaining permission from the Minister of Health and Welfare in accordance with the Blood Management Act in order to perform blood management work. The president took charge of blood donation collection, tests, sanctions, storage and supply, etc. in accordance with the blood business headquarters's policy, and directed and supervises its employees. If deemed necessary, it is recognized that the Korean Red Cross temporarily adjusted and takes charge of its duties and exercises all kinds of authority, such as setting and implementing the blood center's internal rules with regard to nuclear affairs. In light of the above, it is reasonable to see that the Korean Red Cross is the founder of the blood center, and that the person who manages and operates the blood center is the head of the blood center.

In addition, according to the Korean National Red Cross Blood Management Headquarters's fact-finding statement on June 23, 2006, even if the blood donors were to enter the blood donors' blood donation history and the results of the examination on the blood donors' blood donors' blood donation management screen, it was possible to find out the past examination results, such as the blood donors' blood donation date and BC infection training, through the multi-time blood donors' blood donors' blood donation inquiry screen. However, unlike the 1st sloping system which came into force after the instant case, it was not automatically indicated on the screen. In such circumstance, the fact-finding that the blood donors' blood donors' name, resident registration number, and other personal information were to be entered on the 1st knives system and the results of the examination on the previous blood donors' blood donors' blood donors' blood donation history and the previous blood donors' blood donors' blood donors' blood donation management results were not found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been 1D or 2nd 3rd H blood donors's blood donors.

Next, according to Defendant A, B, C, D, and E’s occupational injury, and according to the former Blood Management Act and its Enforcement Rule (amended by Ordinance No. 309 of Jan. 29, 2005; hereinafter the same), blood banks shall examine and confirm the eligibility of blood with respect to the blood gathered, and for this purpose, inquire into the blood donor’s blood donation experience and the previous blood donation inspection results at the time of blood donation, and if a person who manages and operates a blood center violates this, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding five million won. Since the blood center’s business of collecting and supplying blood necessary for blood transfusion directly affects the blood donor’s life and body, where a person who conducts a blood center’s business must comply with the above provision to the maximum extent possible, and where it causes damage to a blood donor as a result of a violation, it is necessary to obtain punishment without considering the importance of legal interests and to expand the scope of punishment by demanding a strict act of evasion.

However, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it can be recognized that the blood donor's name written on the blood donation record card in the process of collecting blood has caused trouble in inquiring about the blood donor's blood donation experience and the results of the previous blood donation test at the time of blood donation by entering his/her computer staff's wrong reading or error in other letters, and as recognized by the court below, it is found that the result of bodily harm has occurred to the blood donor by negligence of the blood donor's wrong blood test, even if the above defendants, the blood bank director, did not directly take charge of blood collection or test, they can be held liable for the injury caused by occupational negligence.

Ultimately, the lower court’s conviction of all the charges against the above Defendants is justifiable, and the above assertion is without merit.

(2) According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, Defendant NN’s statement at the prosecution (14°8409 of the investigation record) and statement at the court of the court below (1963§4 of the trial record), multiple times of blood donors’ inquiry (2015§ 2017 of the trial record), investigation report (14§ 7980 of the investigation record) (14§ 790 of the blood donors’ investigation record), etc. The blood donors’ statement at the court of the court below (14§ 8409 of the investigation record) and the witness yellow ○○, etc.’s statement at the court of the court below (4§ 1963 of the trial record), and the Defendant’s blood donors’ statement at the court of the court below (5§ 2015§ 2017 of the trial record), and the Defendant’s blood donors’ statement at the time of the examination of this case cannot be found to have been found to have been found to have been different from the above Defendant’s blood donors’s examination result.

(3) Defendant Q Q.

According to the statement in the court below's decision of the witness Kim Jong-hwan (3810 books of trial) and the statement in the HCV blood test register (3848, 3849 books of trial) of the Gwangjunam blood bank's HCV blood center on March 2002, at the time when the above defendant inspected his blood, Kim Jong-hwan was involved in the joint examination while assisting each other in the incidental work of the above defendant at the time of the above defendant's examination of blood with the above defendant at the time of the above defendant's examination of blood. The defendant's examination of the above defendant's blood was not conducted separately at the time of the delivery of the body to the 000 high-level and high-level defendant's body, and it was justified in the court below's judgment that the above defendant did not work as a closed day at the time of the examination of the body in order, and that the defendant's examination report was made lawfully by investigating the above facts, such as the defendant's right of examination, and it was justified in the court below's judgment.

B. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) as to the injury caused by occupational negligence of Defendant A, B, C, D, and E, the court below acknowledged facts as to each blood accident of this case and judged that each of the above Defendants was negligent. Thus, even if the court below accepted the above Defendants' duty of care as stated in this part of the facts charged, it cannot be said that there was an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion as to this is groundless. (2) The prosecutor's assertion as to the acquittal portion of the judgment below is without merit.

① Summary of the facts charged against Defendant L and the judgment of the court below

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: Defendant L, at the ○○ blood center on October 12, 2001, required to conduct an inspection of blood of the ○○ accommodation, which is an infectious infection C, and Defendant L, despite having to conduct an inspection using the automatic body distribution cycle, suffered bodily injury caused by booming the blood of the above ○○○○○○○ by having the boomed with the relevant crym to have another body undergo an inspection, in short of the appropriate quantity, in failing to crym the body, or in failing to crym the body, and even if it was judged as a voice as a result of the inspection, despite the duty of care to inquire about blood donation experience and previous inspection results of the blood donor in order to ensure the accuracy of the inspection, even though it was negligent in determining the blood of the said crym to determine the blood of the said crym infection, and by having the said blood shipped out to the cryp.

The court below found Defendant L not guilty on the ground that it was not recognized that Defendant L was erroneous as stated in the facts charged, but it was difficult to view the above Defendant as having a duty to inquire about blood donation and test results in the past.

(2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Article 8(1) of the former Blood Management Act provides that a blood center shall examine and confirm the eligibility of blood with respect to the blood collected. Article 8(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Blood Management Act provides that when a blood center collects blood from a blood donor, it shall, without delay, conduct Eelthy test of blood, non-pypitis test of blood, c (C) mypitis test, sypypitis test, AIDS test, and other tests as determined by the Minister of Health and Welfare. Article 9(1) provides that a blood center shall inquire about the blood donation history of a blood donor and the results of the previous blood donation test at the time of blood donation in order to verify the eligibility of blood. Such procedures for verifying the eligibility of blood shall be in charge of nursing, sanction, supply, etc. according to the detailed work division to ensure the appropriateness of blood management, separate from the procedures for examining the eligibility of blood, and thus, it may always be in charge of nursing, supply, etc. as part of a test and inspection.

shall not be subject to an appeal.

Furthermore, even if ○○ Blood Center’s standard business procedures, inspection and work completion report, etc. at the time of the instant inspection, it cannot be deemed that there was any negligence immediately since it violated such provisions, and it did not immediately have been committed. Furthermore, according to each of the statements at the lower court court court court’s decision (No. 1022, No. 3 books 1231) and the investigation report (in the investigation records, No. 7982) (the investigation records, No. 14 books 7982), etc., each of the statements at E.○○ Blood Center’s ○○○○○○○ Family Center’s standard business procedures, inspection and work completion report, etc. (the investigation records, No. 14 books 102, No. 1231) and the investigation report (the investigation records, No. 7982) were recorded in the instant charges, if it is possible for the Defendant to divide the same kind of body, compared to the automatic owner, and the aforementioned possibility alone cannot be ruled out any possibility of the victim Park ○.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the above defendant as to the facts charged is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor. (B) defendant K, M,O, P, and R

① The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the lower judgment’s determination on Defendant K, M,O, P, and R are as follows: (a) Defendant K was in office of the same blood center inspection division; (b) Defendant M was currently in office of the same blood center inspection division; (c) Defendant P was currently in office of the same blood center inspection division; (d) Defendant P was in office of the head of ○ blood center inspection division; (e) Defendant R was in office of the head of ○ blood center inspection division; (e) Defendant R was in office of the head of ○ blood center inspection division; (c) Defendant R was in office of the final approving authority for the inspection process according to the delegation of the head of the blood center; (d) was in office of other examination division to find out possible errors in the process of inspection; (e) conduct education to prevent errors; (e) conduct tests conducted by inspectors at the inspection site; and (e) conduct tests to verify whether there was an error in blood infection, such as standard blood training guidelines and blood management methods; and (e) conduct tests conducted in the previous examination process of blood infection.

The court below found the above Defendants not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the above Defendants, the chief of the prosecutor's office, implemented a more bble system, dedele system, etc., or had a duty of care to verify whether blood had undergone a past career inquiry, and further, the above Defendants were educated to prevent the inspectors from committing any error, and did not perform the duty of care to confirm whether the prosecutor was conducted in accordance with the internal guidelines, such as standard work procedures, work manual, etc., and the procedures prescribed in the Blood Management Act.

(2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In order to recognize criminal liability of the Director of the Inspection Division who has not been in charge of a direct inspection on the negligence of the inspector in examining the eligibility of blood, the Director of the Inspection Division shall examine the occurrence of the result despite the prediction of the occurrence of the result, and even if he could avoid the occurrence of the result, by failing to avoid the occurrence of the result, and the determination of the existence of the negligence shall be based on the standard of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same duties and duties. However, in general, the Director of the Blood Center's organizational structure shall be based on administrative position and the standard of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same duties and duties. However, considering that the level of the blood examination at the time of the accident as an ordinary blood examination as at the time of the accident as at the time of the accident, the inspector who is qualified for the environmental and clinical pathology in examining the eligibility of blood is always present at the inspection site on the sole basis that the inspector is the Director of the Inspection Division, but it cannot be concluded that each day

Therefore, each of the above defendants' statements at the court of original instance (Provided, That considering the following circumstances, the defendant P made a confession of this part of the facts charged in the court of original instance at the court of original instance, the credibility thereof is insufficient), N, Q, harmony, and L's statements at the prosecutor's office (in the investigation record 4:297, 231, 2432, 2478), etc., the above defendants are the chief of the prosecutor's office of each of the blood banks of this case who was delegated with approval authority from the head of the blood center on matters such as blood treatment results, etc., for which approval is confirmed by the blood center, and who was in general responsible for the inspection and affairs, and the above defendants did not participate in the examination process, and required each prosecutor's personnel to determine the result of examination without examining the body, and it can be recognized that the examination results meet the criteria for sound training and training, and that approval was made.

However, the above facts alone are difficult to conclude that the above Defendants have occupational duty of care to ensure the accuracy of the inspection through substantial verification procedures, such as supervision and verification of the number of inspectors at the inspection site, and whether there are errors in the examination, such as standard work process, work manual, etc., and whether the inspectors complied with all the procedures prescribed in the Blood Management Act, and whether the examination was conducted, and whether the examination was changed before and after the examination. Rather, in light of the testing level and environment of the blood center, the above Defendants, who are the chief of the examination team, have a duty of care to prevent the release of unqualified blood, can not be seen as having been found guilty, as alleged in the above facts charged, since the above Defendants, who are the chief of the examination team, are in charge of the examination team’s collection of blood, divided the examination body in the next highest order, or did not have any evidence that there was an injury to the victims of the examination due to mistake in the order of each examination team or reading the changed value, as alleged in the latter part of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. In light of the equity of the punishment imposed on Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, N, and the prosecutor’s argument on unfair sentencing, the above Defendants and Q are either initial offenders or there is no previous criminal record, and the punishment imposed on Defendant A, B, D, H, H, J, N, and Q, which were co-defendants of the lower court, is fair, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime as indicated in the records and pleadings of the instant case, and all of the sentencing factors, including the above Defendants’ age, occupation, academic background, career, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the above Defendants is appropriate, excessive, or excessive, and thus, the aforementioned Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion on this issue is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal filed by Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, N, Q, and prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That Defendant D and Q jointly add "B" to all of Article 2- D (2) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, "No. 2-D. 12" to "No. 13, 2002" to "No. 2-e. 12 E. 3, 2002", and "No. 3, 2002" to "No. 3, 2003.

Judges Lee Jae-won

Judges Thai-man

Judges Lee Jin-jin