logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.14 2014노4448
업무상과실치상등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (defluence of facts or misapprehension of legal principles);

A. (1) The Defendant did not breach his duty of care due to the reduction of the roof with the adequate pressure on the part of the surgery.

In addition, the case of the victim's abduction is rare to the extent that it is not reported to domestic and foreign academic circles. It is predicted that the victim's injury is not due to the defendant's excessive pressure, but due to excessive pressure on return and pressure.

The defendant is expected to be in such an exceptional situation as above, and it is not possible to see the roof immediately after the operation.

In the end, the victim's injury is a result unforeseeable as the defendant in light of the general medical level, so even if the defendant violated any duty of care, it cannot be viewed that there is a causal relationship with the breach of duty.

(2) In addition, even if there was a defendant's violation of the duty to explain as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, the victim visited the hospital more than three days after the surgery, and the victim's negligence occurred, and thus, there is no proximate causal relation between the defendant's violation of the duty to explain and the result of injury.

(3) Therefore, even though the Defendant was not liable for the injury caused by occupational negligence, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. Before conducting an operation, the Defendant: (a) selected propool as a anesthesia suitable for the pertinent veterinary surgery; (b) determined the necessary volume and method of injection; and (c) given detailed instructions to the assistant nurse; (d) the Defendant directly participated in a anesthesia place; (e) continued to give the victim’s signs, etc. during the course of injection; and (e) took measures to ensure that the assistant nurse ends without fault; and (e) the assistant nurse.

arrow