The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. After the victim's kne-free kne-free feng operation, the defendant confirmed the above operation department every day, and around May 16, 2010, the defendant judged the victim's appeal to the kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free, and ordered the victim to administer the kne-free kne-free kne-out kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-out to verify the occurrence of the above operation department's kne-free kne-free kne-out.

B. On the day of the instant case, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been negligent on the sole ground that the victim’s respiratory distress condition has deteriorated due to the Cratulation surgery (a procedure to confirm whether the Defendant was infected by an infectionation of the pipe value) executed by the Defendant on the day of the instant case. Moreover, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been negligent on the part of the mere fact that the Defendant did not make the aforementioned efforts by deeming that the Defendant was a superior hospital was a prompt priority, rather than making efforts to improve the oxygen in blood in a

C. Even if the victim did not wear a oxygen smoking machine during the course of transferring the victim, it cannot be deemed that it was a direct cause of death of the victim, and there is no causal link, and it cannot be deemed that there was a possibility and possibility of avoidance to the defendant.

2. Determination

A. In order to recognize medical malpractice in medical malpractice, the medical practitioner could have predicted and avoided the occurrence of the outcome.