2016 Highest 5902 Occupational Death, etc.

A

○○ (prosecution) and ○○ (Public Trial)

Law Firm ○

[Defendant-Appellant]

December 22, 2017

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person in charge of the duties such as identifying the patient's personal information and providing the patient's information to an emergency room after undergoing the procedure for receiving the patient's information, if the patient desires to leave the emergency room at night in the ○○-gu Seoul ○○○-dong****.

On August 8, 2014, at around 04:15, the Defendant complained of a sudden return and wrong return while working in the emergency room of the above ○○ Hospital, and had the victim, who was sent to the emergency room of the above hospital, take over the victim’s △△△△△△ after being sent to the emergency room by the 119 emergency staff.

In such cases, the defendant, who is the chief executive officer or employee, had a duty of care to promptly verify the patient's personal information and to guide the patient to the emergency room after undergoing the procedure for receiving the patient's personal information.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in breach of such duty of care, determined that the victim was not in an emergency, and did not receive medical treatment from the victim on the ground that the victim was in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in an emergency, and was unable to take care of the victim on the ground that the victim was in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being in a state of being taken, and was unable to recover medical expenses of KRW 17,000,000, and had a record of returning home.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim's death by his occupational negligence on the same day at around 09:20 on the same day, and caused the victim's death by his/her persuasion at around 12:45 of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of ○○○○○;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police officer regarding △△△ and △△△;

1. The statement of ○○○ out of the police suspect examination protocol twice against the defendant;

1. Statement of each police statement in relation to △△△△, △△△, and △△△;

1. A autopsy appraisal report or medical malpractice appraisal report;

1. A copy of the record book of the △△△△△△ Hospital and a copy of the emergency medical services log in 119;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Selection of imprisonment without prison labor

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

It cannot be deemed that the defendant, who is merely the head of a hospital with no medical knowledge, was obligated to anticipate and avoid the patient's death as a duty of occupational duty. Since it could not be determined as an emergency patient in light of the victim's situation at the time, it cannot be found that the defendant's negligence was not recognized since there was no possibility of expectation for the victim's death. At the time, there is no causal relationship that the victim died due to the victim's suicide due to the delayed medical treatment in light of other illness in addition to the pan-p

2. Determination

6. The above evidence duly adopted and examined, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court: ① the victim was suffering from death without an urgent treatment as an emergency patient requiring prompt rehabilitation, and the victim was under emergency treatment at the time of the instant case; (ii) the victim was an emergency patient without an urgent treatment, such as an emergency site, etc.; and (iii) the victim was not obliged to receive an opportunity for prompt treatment or treatment of the patient at the time of his/her refusal to receive an emergency medical treatment because it was possible for the victim to suffer from an emergency patient’s death without an urgent treatment; and (iv) the victim was under the duty to inform the patient of his/her refusal to receive an emergency medical treatment at the time of his/her refusal to receive an emergency medical treatment by 19 emergency medical personnel on August 8, 2014.

Reasons for sentencing

The defendant is a senior citizen of the society who had worked for six months at the time, and the victim's situation revealed out of the outside is not an emergency patient in order to identify and resolve the fact that the victim did not have any medical expenses and without permission during the process of receiving emergency patients. At the time, the victim seems to have caused the crime of this case. At the time, the victim had a serious disease such as a high level of heart ties, cryposis, local liverer disease, etc. in addition to the pansive typosis, and the above disease appears to have played a role of promoting the death of this case. The defendant deposited 15 million won in the name of agreement for the victim's bereaved family members, and there is no criminal history against the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant was an employee of the hospital where the patient's life and safety should be the top priority of the patient's life, but the defendant refused to receive the victim's emergency medical expenses due to the sudden illness, and thus, the defendant did not reach an agreement between the victim and the victim's main sentencing guidelines.

Judge Han-dae