2013 High School 348 Occupational, etc.

A

He/she shall file a prosecution, make a best balance of revenues and expenditures.

Attorney B

May 2, 2014

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000. Where the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

On May 26, 2010, from around 11:00 to around 18:00, the Defendant: (a) performed a 3rd floor operation in C Hospital; (b) on May 24, 2010, the victim DC69 years of age hospitalized in C Hospital in order to undergo a workplace cancer operation; (c) on a dC69 years of age, the Defendant performed a dC69 year of age by using a dC69 mouth in a general anesthesia; (d) on the part of the victim, the Defendant performed a dculpary reculption by using a dactinary in a general anesthesia; (b) 4 joints of the victim; (c) one joints of the two parts; (d) one joints of the two parts; (d) four joints of the two parts; (d) one joints of the two parts; (d) one joints of the two parts; and (e) one part of the two parts of the work site; and (d) one part of the other part.

On May 29, 2010, the discharge amount leaked from the distribution pipe installed by the victim after the operation was reduced from May 29, 2010 to May 240, 2010. The rapid increase on May 1, 2010 to May 31, 2010, and the content of the mixture of cocolon ingredients was leaked. The Defendant, using the duct around June 1, 2010, deducted the president, the end of the complaint, from his body, so that the content can be discharged from his body immediately (hereinafter referred to as the "second operation").

However, even after that, the coagulations installed in the victim were leaked from 1,480cc on June 3, 2010, 1,840cc on June 4, 2010, and 1,825cc on June 5, 2010. In such a case, the defendant has a duty of care to promptly take measures to find other causes than dump leakage, but the defendant has a duty of care to clean down the dump, give antibiotics only to the victim, and to take other measures without any specific duty to take 0,000 pump. 2. The defendant was leaked into 100 pump, and the degree of infection was heart 7.0 pumpyp, and the defendant found the factory part of the dump operation to be 10,000 pumped, but the defendant had not recovered from 20,000 pump operation again due to 7,000 pump operation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of the E, F, and G;

1. The case of a letter of request for appraisal (207 pages of investigation records);

1. A written appraisal as of February 18, 2014;

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

The defendant asserts that there is no negligence because he fulfilled his duty of care as a doctor.

In relation to the first operation, the evidence adopted in this case alone cannot be deemed to have proved the occurrence of the warden's tent at the time of the first operation, and it is difficult to conclude that there was damage to the warden due to the defendant's occupational negligence at the time of the first operation in light of the procedure of the first operation by lavercing, and ② in relation to the second operation, the defendant judged that the defendant was a laver leakage and performed the second operation, which was a lavercing surgery after the diagnosis by lavercing. It is difficult to conclude that the evidence adopted in this case was in the situation where the warden had occurred at the time of the second operation. In addition, in light of the amount of excreta through lavercing and its change after the first operation, and the nature of the laverd amount raised at the time of the first operation, it cannot be said that the defendant was negligent in performing his duties due to unexpected negligence before the second operation after the first operation, and therefore it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's judgment and the second operation by laverc.

However, even after June 1, 2010, prior to the second operation, 2010.31, prior to the second operation, 1,905cc., which was 1,90cc., prior to the second operation, 200. 60cc., compared with the second operation, 1,480cc., June 3, 2010, 1,840cc., June 4, 2010, and 1,825cc., the amount was still high, according to the evidence adopted in this case, it was found that there was a symptoms to prevent the second operation from spreading once due to the leakage of the contents before the second operation, and that there was no possibility that the second operation might have been executed by the warden immediately after the second operation, and that there was no possibility that the patient might have been infected with the first operation, such as the result of the diagnosis of the patient's 1,600cc.

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 Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Considering the fact that there is no record of crime in sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; that there is no record of crime committed by the victim's bereaved families; that all surviving families are not punished by mutual agreement; that the Defendant has been able to fully perform his duties while continuing an advanced surgery against many serious patients with a sense of duty as an external professor of a university hospital so far; and

Judges Jeon Jinio