[1] The requirements and criteria for the recognition of doctor's negligence in a medical accident

[2] The case denying the doctor's negligence in charge of an operation, in case where the driver in charge of an operation in the vertecule in spine in the vertecule of the vertebrate had the best efforts to find and remove the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sc

[1] In order to recognize a doctor's negligence in a medical accident, the negligence that did not anticipate the occurrence of the result even though the doctor could have predicted the occurrence of the result, and could have avoided the occurrence of the result, should be examined. In determining the existence of the negligence, the degree of general attention of the general person engaged in the same duties and duties should be determined based on the standard, and the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, and the specificity of the medical practice should be considered.

[2] The case holding that the negligence of the doctor in charge cannot be acknowledged in light of the fact that, although the driver in charge of the burgical burgical burgical surgery made best efforts to remove the burgical burgical burgical system by finding out the burgical burgical angle (3x 5mm), it was not found that the burgical burgical burgical burgical burgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical curgical c

[1] Article 268 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 268 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Do3199 delivered on June 12, 1984 (Gong1984, 1320), Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1469 delivered on January 20, 1987 (Gong1987, 364), Supreme Court Decision 95Do2710 delivered on November 8, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3632), Supreme Court Decision 97Do1678 delivered on October 10, 197 (Gong197Ha, 3531)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 9No164 delivered on July 16, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of having experienced psychological shock in the case where the injury was inflicted on the victim due to flachial injury in the number of days due to flachial injury to the victim, even though the merculation for the surgery performed during the vertebomic surgery No. 5 for the victim, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the injury to the victim, based on the following facts: (a) on the facts that the Defendant, who worked with the surgery outside of a university affiliated with the university, was found to have been in the body of the victim; and (b) on the grounds that the flachial injury caused the injury to the victim, such as flachial depression, and flachiecosis, etc., caused injury to the victim without any removal; and (c) on the grounds that the flachial injury caused by flachial injury to the victim, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the flachial injury caused by flachial disorder surgery or f, etc.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Meanwhile, in order to recognize a doctor’s negligence in a medical accident, the negligent act that failed to anticipate the occurrence of the result despite the foreseeable of the occurrence of the result, and that failed to avoid the occurrence of the result despite the possibility of avoiding the occurrence of the result, should be examined. Determination of the existence of the negligence must be based on the standard of general attention of the ordinary person engaged in the same duties and duties, and the standard should be taken into account the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, and the peculiarity of the medical practice (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1678, Oct. 10, 197).

According to the records, since an operation performed by the defendant against the victim should be removed only from part of the flive body attached to spine using a camera, which is a disposable product, it is often possible to cover the end of the flive body. In such cases, if the body is ordinarily easily discovered and can be removed but it is not easily discovered, it can be easily removed in the process of the operation, and additional damage can be done to the flive or blood relationship. Therefore, once the body is flive with the body, and the body is cut off and the body is removed later, it is not possible to find the risk of removal of the flive body in light of the above circumstances of the flive operation without considering the exact location of the flive body and its danger caused by the flive operation, and it is also difficult to find the risk of removal of the flive body by considering the location of the flive body and the risk of removal by the defendant's flive body in light of the medical condition of the flive operation.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)