[1] The requirements and criteria for the recognition of doctor's negligence in a medical accident

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that there is an occupational negligence on the part of the emergency room who conducts a knife operation without checking the knife in depth on the part of the dead body of the patient who knife the knife with the knife of robbery and without confirming the knife which

[1] In order to recognize a doctor's negligence in a medical accident, the doctor failed to anticipate the occurrence of the result even though he could have predicted the occurrence of the result, and even if he could avoid the occurrence of the result, the negligence which failed to avoid the occurrence of the result should be examined. Determination of the existence of the negligence should be based on the standard of general attention of the general person engaged in the same duties and duties. Accordingly, the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, and the specificity of the medical practice should be considered.

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that a doctor at night in an emergency room who conducts a knife operation as it is, without confirming the knife (11cm in length x 3cm in width) of the patient's arms that knife the arms with knife with the knife, was negligent in performing the knife operation

[1] Article 268 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 268 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do3711 delivered on December 10, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 260) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3292 delivered on January 10, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 656)

Defendant

Within the sphere of construction

The defendant is innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

Around 00:08 on November 2, 2005, the Defendant: (a) at an emergency hospital located in Young-si Si Schancheon (Stop omitted); (b) had the victim non-indicted (52 years old) who was working in the emergency room of the above hospital, knife on the left-hand side by keeping the knife in the knife while working in the emergency room; and (c) had the victim in charge of the emergency room receive medical treatment. In such a case, the doctor in charge of the emergency room first confirmed the patient’s life signal before taking emergency measures, after having confirmed the patient’s life signal; and (d) had the patient’s consciousness take other appropriate measures such as taking X-ray shooting or conducting other tests; (e) provided the victim with a duty of care to ask what fnife the body of the victim; and (e) did not properly remove the body of the victim with the knife, and did not have the victim’s knife with the knife.

2. Defendant's assertion;

While recognizing the fact that the Defendant performed a flag operation without discovering the knife knife on the left side of the victim, the Defendant, as a doctor in charge of night emergency room, determined the status of the victim by fulfilling his/her normal duty of care, provided medical treatment by doing his/her best, and claimed the facts charged in the instant case.

3. Determination

A. Criteria for determination

In order to recognize a doctor's negligence in a medical accident, if a doctor could have predicted the occurrence of the result, he/she could not anticipate it, and even if he/she could have avoided the occurrence of the result, he/she could not avoid the occurrence of the result. In determining the existence of such negligence, the degree of general attention of ordinary persons performing the same duties and duties should be based on the standard, and the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, medical environment and conditions, characteristics of medical practice, etc. should be considered (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do3711, Dec. 10, 199).

B. Facts of recognition

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the defendant's legal statement, the victim had knife at around 23:30 on Nov. 1, 2005 the left part of the strength, and immediately after 0:18 on the following day, the victim stated that the victim had knife in the emergency room of the above hospital (the victim did not appeal other parts except for about 3 cm in the left part), but did not inform the defendant that the knife would have been knife on the upper part of the fact that the knife would have been knife after being knifeed by the victim's knife and knife at least 2 knife at the time of the operation (the victim did not appeal other parts of the knife after being knife at the time of the operation. The victim did not have any doubt that the knife would have been knife and knife at the time of the operation.

C. Determination as to the existence of negligence

In light of the above circumstances and circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the existence of a foreign substance is likely to exist by the heat using a knife or the patient's statement, except in extenuating circumstances. Although the defendant did not conduct a X-rara inspection, it is an emergency room where the victim was treated as the victim; the victim's time in an emergency room is the new wall time where the patient was treated without the patient's own aid by the defendant, who is the doctor in charge, alone, without the patient's own aid; it is difficult to find that there was a lack of sufficient evidence of the prosecutor's negligence in light of the following: (a) the heat using a knife is likely to suspect the existence of a foreign substance by observation or the patient's statement; (b) the defendant did not have conducted a X-rara inspection; (c) despite other general requirements, it is difficult to find that there was a lack of sufficient evidence of the prosecutor's opinion and the fact that there was a lack of sufficient evidence of the prosecutor's opinion in the investigation agency, even if there was a lack of other evidence.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Yang Sung-soo