Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a doctor who operates the Drown-gu Seoul Central Government Office in the 3rd floor of the Seoul Central Government Office.

On April 20, 201, when treating victims E (n.e., 9 months after the birth) who visited the above member in order to take follow-up measures after the implementation of flaging at an Alyi University Hospital by suffering from the 3 balance of the left side, the Defendant, despite the occupational duty of care to take adequate measures to prevent the occurrence of any disorder in the blood circulation due to excessive pressure, caused the victim's multiple-friendly fingers excessively excessive pressure on the above fingers, thereby causing excessive pressure to the above fingers, thereby causing damage to the victim's 3rd laveg, etc. due to the blood cycle disorder.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Medical records (over-the-counter department), written confirmation of the fact of medical treatment, etc. (Seoul General Hospital), written opinion, and medical certificate (over-the-counter department);

1. Duplicative photo;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the entrustment of appraisal and correspondence (Attachment of written appraisal);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. The defendant, despite being able to commit a bareboat act against E so that the blood circulation disorder does not occur, the defendant applied to the hospital 3 days after the two days designated by the defendant. Unlike the defendant's treatment at the time of the internal payment, part of the bareboat act was put up. This part of the bareboat act was caused by the defendant, and it was not caused by the defendant's negligence. However, the defendant's bareboat act did not occur.