The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is difficult to deem that there was a reason not to prescribe the victim, since there was no opinion of the depth of salt in the time when the Defendant prescribed the Medilusium, which is the lusor system, by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

It is reasonable to see that the victim's pulpy of pulpy is the acquisition of a local community following the victim's pulpy or outing, and it shall not be deemed infections in the hospital.

In addition, although the defendant took measures to have the victim receive internal medical treatment, the victim refused to do so and did not lead to an internal medical treatment.

Comprehensively taking account of these facts, there was a defendant's breach of duty of care required by medical personnel.

It cannot be said that there is a proximate causal relation with the negligence of the defendant, such as trupture and trupture generated by the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of suspended execution on June) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to recognize the medical personnel’s negligence in a medical accident (i.e., mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the medical personnel’s negligence should be examined by failing to avoid the occurrence of the outcome despite the foreseeable occurrence of the outcome, and even if it was possible to avoid the occurrence of the outcome, by failing to avoid the occurrence of the outcome. Determination of whether there was negligence should be based on the standard level of general attention of the general 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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8360 delivered on August 24, 2006). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court is recognized.