2015dan5624 A. Occupational failure, etc.

(b) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.2.(b) C Hospital

Transitions (prosecutions) and Kim Jae-woo (Trial)

Law Firm D (private ships for all of the defendants)

Attorney E, F

December 8, 2016

1. Defendant A

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year. The execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million. In the event that Defendant B fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of one hundred thousand won converted into one day.

3. Defendant C Hospital’s Defendant C Hospital is punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

Criminal History Office

1. Defendant A and Defendant B’s joint criminal administration were the doctors working for the outside of the hospital located in Seo-gu, Busan as professors, and the victim H (the age of 78 at the time of treatment). Defendant B was a radiation worker working for the above hospital. On February 17, 2011, the victim was under the care of the victim A, and the victim was under the care of the victim on November 29, 2012, immediately after the CT inspection administered the steering system for a regular medical examination, the victim was under the care of the victim under the steering system (Anaphyxis) and was under the care of the victim in the emergency room. Since the victim was under the care of the victim, the victim was under the care of the victim’s instructions for the prevention of side effects, such as the victim’s medical information system (C Hospital information system), the victim should have been registered immediately after examining whether the victim was under the care of the victim, and the victim was under the care of the victim’s online popic effects.

Nevertheless, the Defendants limited to a warning of the victim's early side effects registered in I in violation of the above duty of care, and Defendant A recommended the victim outside the above hospital and the clinic to undergo a regular medical examination after about one month from December 9, 2013, and had the victim conduct a CT inspection that is needed to conduct a full tide medication. Defendant B, around January 8, 2014, in the above hospital department and the inspector's office of image, without reporting the victim to the medical doctor, etc., while performing the CT inspection on the victim's early stage, he administered the cT examination without reporting the victim's legislative side effects to the medical doctor, etc., thereby resulting in the side effects of the cT examination again, and the victim died from the cT examination on January 9, 2014.

The Defendants jointly and negligently caused the death of the victim by occupational negligence.

2. Defendant B

On January 8, 2014, at the above hospital image department and CT inspector room, the Defendant independently determined the amount of cT medication and the method of cT photographing prior to the operation of medical practice without a license, and linked the cteb to the techer connected to the blood pipe, and then administered the eculator by the method of pressing the eculator.

3. Defendant C Hospital Defendant C Hospital’s employee, committed an act of violation as referred to in the above two paragraphs with respect to the business of Defendant C Hospital at the time and place of the above two paragraphs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant A and the defendant B

1. The suspect examination protocol of K by the prosecution;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding L;

1. Recording notes;

1. Notice of the result of appraisal, certificate of medical record, certificate of compulsory copy, facsimile obligation record, Ipop-up shop photograph, status of progress of HN CT inspection;

1. A death certificate;

1. The Korea Medical Association for Appraisal and Commission;

1. Complaint;

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Selection of imprisonment without prison labor

B. Defendant B: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 87(1)2 and 27(1) of the Medical Service Act; selection of fines

(c) Defendant C Hospital: Articles 91, 87(1)2, and 27(1) of the Medical Service Act;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (Defendant B);

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant B);

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant A);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that there is no occupational negligence on the part of Defendant A and Defendant B, and there is insufficient evidence to prove that the victim’s death was caused by the operation of the climatic system, and that the act of the climatic administration by Defendant B, a radiation company, does not violate

2. Determination on the cause of the victim's death

Although it is very rare to death due to the side effects of the steering system, damage is caused.

Although there is no autopsy on the victim's death, the death diagnosis report prepared by the medical department of the same hospital immediately after the victim's death is indicated as the cause of death in the form of a multi-satise dactic shock due to the shock, and the J testified to the effect that the victim was present in the court as a witness and voluntarily judged the cause of the deceased's death as a side effect due to the steering system. Meanwhile, in the interview place with the bereaved family members, the defendant recognized the death of the victim due to the side effects of the steering system, and also confirmed such facts to the J during the course of the preparation of the death diagnosis report.The results of the Korean Medical Association reported that the possibility of the victim's death was relatively low due to the side effects of the steering system, but it does not completely exclude the possibility of the victim's death, and it cannot be seen to have raised the objective credibility of the hospital immediately after the victim's death was directly treated and immediately after the death was confirmed.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the cause of the victim’s death is the side effect of the Cho Young-gu administration.

3. Determination on Defendant A and Defendant B’s occupational negligence

In order to recognize medical malpractice in a medical accident, it is recognized that medical personnel could have predicted the occurrence of outcome and could not have avoided, and that there was no negligence. In determining the existence of such negligence, the standard level of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same duties and duties should be determined, but the general level of medicine at the time of the accident, medical environment and conditions, special characteristics of medical practice, etc. should be taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3090, Aug. 11, 2008). In addition, a doctor has the duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the medical practice such as diagnosis and treatment. In determining the existence of negligence in a medical examination, a doctor has the duty of care to take such measures based on the level of medical practice performed in a clinical medical field such as a medical institution at the time of the medical practice. However, even if it is impossible at least in the process, the doctor must be determined within the maximum level of clinical medicine, 10.

In light of the above legal principles, the above statements were made to the victim, namely, the following circumstances that can be recognized by compiling the above evidence, i.e., the victim's side effects due to early administration, ii) the hospital's doctor, etc. left the pop-up shop so that they do not teach these facts. ③ Nevertheless, the defendant A and the defendant B were aware that the victim was aware of the accident that occurred after the early administration, and the defendant A concluded that the above accident was not caused by early administration of the medical records, and that the above accident was not caused by early administration of the medical records, but by the medical personnel's request to take measures against the above defendant, even if the above defendant's argument that the above defendant was changed by early administration of the family affairs, the above statements cannot be believed to have been made, and even if the above defendant's opinion that the above defendant's pop-up operation could not cause any side effects, the above defendant's intention cannot be viewed to have been found to have been found to have been found to have failed to take measures against the above defendant's doctor or others's negligence.

4. Determination as to whether a person violates the Medical Service Act

In principle, medical practice shall be performed only by a medical person; however, under the Act on Medical Technicians, Etc., medical practice shall be permitted to be performed by a person who has a license for a medical doctor, dental technician, dental technician, dental technician, dental technician, or dental technician under the direction of a dentist, or dental technician. However, permission for part of medical practice under the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, which is limited to only a medical technician system, is granted to a specific part of the medical practice, which is limited to a medical personnel system, and which is less likely to cause harm to human life or body or public health. As to the specific part of the medical practice, which is limited to a medical personnel system, where the medical personnel has knowledge and experience about the risk, etc. that may cause harm to human life or body or public health, the license shall be granted to a person who is deemed to have the ability to confirm the reaction of human body caused by the medical practice in that field, determine whether there is any possibility to cope with the situation, and the license shall be granted to such person so limited that the medical practice can be performed under the instruction of the doctor (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do214, Aug.

Meanwhile, according to Article 3 of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act and Article 2 (1) 2 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the radiation company can only handle radioactive rays and spheric radiation, handle the nuclear and spheric radiation diagnosis devices using radioisotopes, select and manage radiation equipment and ancillary equipment under the above provision. According to the above provision, the act of Defendant B, a radiation company, puts the body of a patient into the body of the patient under the above Act.

It is difficult to view that a radiation company’s scope of duties is limited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779, Apr. 7, 2000).

Ultimately, since it is not legally permitted to put the above defendant into the body of the patient, there is no ground for the defendants and the defense counsel's assertion on this issue (the above person asserts that almost all hospitals in the Republic of Korea are in charge of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the radiation company, and the Korean Radiation Industry Association also submitted written opinions and written applications to that effect in the trial process. However, as long as the law provides as the law and the positive law is interpreted as above in the court, the situation where the above person's efforts are resolved through legislation cannot be justified in the name of practice, even though it is an issue that should be resolved through legislation. Rather, large hospitals such as the defendant C Hospital are more obligated to comply with the positive law to protect and promote the health of the people).

The reason for sentencing is that Defendant A, who is not a patient who has caused treatment or surgery due to his own negligence, caused a serious consequence of causing the death of a healthy patient who has caused a regular medical examination. In particular, since this medical accident took place at the hospital to prevent accidents, it is difficult for the above Defendant to take account of the fact that the medical record was more poppy and the side effects were sufficiently considered in the process of determining a doctor’s intention, and thus, it would have been sufficiently avoided if he had been carefully handled, such as taking into account the possibility of recurrence of side effects, it is difficult for the doctor to take into account the fact that it was difficult for Defendant A to take into account the above circumstances, such as the fact that the medical accident that could have been caused by actual frequency in the process of surgery, and thus, the degree of negligence is much more severe than that of the medical accident that could have been caused by the doctor, and the fact that Defendant B, while working for a pop-up shop and without reporting the intention to take account of the situation that it could not have been caused by an occupational negligence.

Meanwhile, although there was no agreement between the Defendants and their bereaved family members, it is determined that monetary damage can be recovered through civil litigation filed by the Defendants against the Defendants, and the circumstances where the Defendants deposited KRW 100 million for the bereaved family members are also recognized.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing as

Judges Cho Jong-soo