The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, ① the Defendant did not have a duty to secure a flag and to call, solely on the ground that the Defendant did not perform his/her duty of inserting the engine, because he/she did not make any insertion in the engine, as the Defendant used the back-to-face string machine (LMA) to secure a flag and to maintain the

shall not be deemed to exist.

② The Defendant, at the preparation stage of the procedure, administered the compact, which is an anti-satison, to the victim, and additionally administered the anti-satison by administering the anti-satison with N’s advice. As such, the Defendant was negligent in not administering the anti-satison.

shall not be deemed to exist.

③ At the time, the victim was under high blood pressure, and the Defendant, upon N’s advice, administered the blood pressure congested to the victim, and the Defendant had already included the volume of the meat administered to the victim at the preparation stage of the procedure, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed as a breach of duty of care to the extent that he did not use the meather additionally.

④ At the time of arrival of H, instead of confirming the victim’s heart suspension, H, upon arrival of the victim, sought an explanation from the Defendant and confirmed the victim’s condition, the Defendant was under a scarcityd pressure.

Matern pressure should be done after checking the heart suspension. Thus, while the victim was not showing signs of the heart suspension, the defendant's failure to take chest pressure cannot be viewed as a violation of the duty of care.

⑤ The Defendant had both equipment, human resources, and chemicals necessary for emergency measures; two medical specialists (the Defendant and H) performed emergency measures; and 119 was taken to transport the victim to a large hospital in order to grasp the cause of the heart suspension; thus, the Defendant has a duty of care to transfer the victim to a large hospital more early.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The court below rendered unfair sentencing.