beta
Text
The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
B is a doctor of the D Hospital.
Defendant
A is the nurse of the same hospital.
Defendant
B On September 25, 2014, at the D Hospital located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, for the purpose of diagnosing the victim F (7 years of age, n.e., 77 years of age) hospitalized due to the symptoms of clothes as a pan-loppy infection by the warden, and performing an lapying administration with the part of the complaint of a single window in the lappy mouth, after performing an lappy administration with the head of the lappy lappy in the lappy mouth, the lapar was installed within the lappy for the purpose of observing the lappy and the lappy outflow of the lappy lappy that may occur after the surgery, and ordered the Defendant A to remove the lappy of the victim on October 6, 2014.
Defendant
A has a duty of care to carefully observe and confirm whether a part of a distribution pipe installed in a part of the victim's right is left in the body, such as in a case where the source of the distribution pipe, which was installed in the part of the victim's right, was cut off in his hand, and the amount of the distribution pipe was anticipated to be cut out by various factors, such as rubber or pulse, etc., due to rubber or pulse, or at the time of treatment, it was difficult to treat the products. However, even though the defendant has a duty of care to carefully observe and confirm whether the distribution pipe was cut down in the middle and the part remains in the body, the amount of the distribution pipe installed in the part of the victim's body was cut off in his hand, and the remainder of the 20 cm, which was neglected to perform the above duty of care, remains in the part of the distribution pipe cut off.
Defendant
B, on October 10, 2014, even though X-ray was taken on the part of the body of the victim who complained of the continued clothes, the Defendant sustained injury to the victim by October 16, 2014 due to occupational negligence, which was not discovered by accurately reading the results of the normal reading of radiation and the head of the division outside the name of the case and did not discover it accurately.
As a result, the Defendants were negligent in neglecting their duty of care.