Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Edification

Attorney Jeong Sung-won in charge of the prestigious law

Suwon District Court Decision 2003Da4544 Delivered on June 25, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants, while jointly operating the (title omitted) postnatal care center in Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si (hereinafter omitted), have been engaged in the work of managing women and infants hospitalized in the above cooka-si in low hours, together with the Defendants in the work of managing women and infants alternately during night hours, and jointly with them:

On November 17, 202, 11: from 00 to 04: 28 of the same month, Nonindicted Party 1 (33 years of age) brought up infants who were victims of this month, who had given birth on the 12th day of the same month. They cannot express opinions even if they go on sick, and thus, Defendants who were entrusted with the bringing up of infants did not have to take measures for the said infant’s physical temperature change, the frequency or quantity of breast trees change, the number or quantity of breast trees, the decrease in body, etc. 2: From 00 to 00 to 104:0 to 200 to 37:0 to 4:0 to 4:0 to 4:0 after the above infant’s death, who had not come to know about the above symptoms and conditions of the infant’s death, and thus, they should have a duty of care to immediately send the infant to the hospital, for a period of more than 6:0 to 30,000 after the above infant’s death.

2. Judgment of the court below and a summary of the grounds for appeal

In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the court below punished the Defendants as occupational homicides on the ground that the Defendants neglected their duty of care as stated in the above facts charged.

On this issue, the Defendants asserted that they do not have criminal responsibility since they fulfilled their duty of care as the director of the post-care center.

3. Judgment of party members

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the following facts are recognized.

(1) From September 7, 2002, the Defendants jointly operated a postnatal care center with the trade name of “(title omitted) postnatal clinic”. From the total size of 140 square meters, the Defendants installed 18 postnatal care rooms, toilets, shower rooms, and mountain resting rooms for the postnatal care of the newborn baby in their surroundings, and operated 3 assistant nurses, 1 cook, 1 cook, and 1 cleaning room in addition to the Defendants with the nurse experience.

B. At around 13:55 on November 12, 2002, Nonindicted Party 1 gave birth to the instant infant (sex male, body body 3.36 km) at the king Hospital, which was given birth to the said hospital, and was engaged in postnatal care at the said hospital at around 11:00 of the same month, and entered the said postnatal care center at around 17:0 of the same month with the said infant. At the time, there was no particular symptoms, but at the time, the body was somewhat reduced or 3.15 km.

Referencely, the Defendants: (a) have placed the instant infant in the management office of the newborn baby; (b) have measured the volume of water flow, the state of excreta, the body weight, and the body temperature every day along with the breast-child’s oil; and (c) have recorded special matters and kept them in front of the newborn baby so that Nonindicted 1, a mother, can check the health conditions of the baby at any time.

⑷ 그런데, 이 사건 영아는 2002. 11. 19.경 및 그 다음날 각 2회 설사를 한 것 이외에는 별다른 증상이 없이 잘 자라다가(영아의 체중이 같은 달 19.경 2.9kg으로 줄었으나 그 다음날 다시 3.1kg으로 회복이 되었다), 같은 달 25.경 22:30경부터 다시 설사를 하기 시작하였고, 이에 담당 간호조무사는 같은 날 03:00경부터 위 영아에게 설사분유를 수유하기 시작하였는데 그 다음날 07:30경까지 묽은 변 4회, 설사 3회를 하고 체중 역시 2.75kg로 줄어들었다. 한편 그 무렵 평소 위 산후조리원에는 평소 3-4명이던 설사하는 영아숫자가 5-6명으로 다소 증가한 상태였다.

(v) Accordingly, at around 08:00 on the 26th of the same month, Defendant 1, a mother’s mother, had frequent snow, and first of all, he decided that he will move to the hospital if he does not leave the shot-shot(s) shot(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)

⑹ 그에 따라 피고인 1은 같은 달 27.경 공소외 1에게 표룡환을 좀더 먹여 보는 게 어떠냐고 제의하여 공소외 1의 동의를 얻어 포룡환 1알을 더 사 가지고 와서 같은 날 15:00경부터 다시 4시간 간격으로 나누어 먹었고, 이후로도 별다른 이상증세가 없었으나, 만일의 사태에 대비하여 같은 날 21:00경 공소외 1에게 지금은 아기가 변도 좋아지고 먹는 것도 잘 먹으니까 지켜보다가 밤중에라도 상태가 나빠지면 병원에 가보자며 안심시켰다. 이에 공소외 1은 같은 날 23:00경 위 영아에게 직접 수유한 후 산후조리실로 돌아갔다.

⑺ 그후 위 피고인은 같은 날 24:00경 신생아관리실을 다시 둘러보았으나 위 영아에게 약간 코막힘 증상이 있을 뿐 별다른 이상증세를 보이지 아니하였는데, 그 다음날 01:20경부터 위 영아가 수유를 받고도 계속하여 수유를 보채면서 묽은 변을 보았고, 이에 02:10경 보리차 20cc를 먹였으나 다시 설사를 하고 울면서 계속 수유를 보챘으며, 다시 보리차 40cc를 먹였지만 설사를 반복하는 등 같은 날 04:00경까지 묽은 변을 1회 본 후 연이어 설사를 4회를 하였다. 이에 위 피고인은 위 영아의 탈수증세를 의심하고 근육긴장도, 복부팽만도, 피부색, 혀의 마름정도, 박동·호흡수, 체온 등을 측정해 보았지만 특별한 증후를 발견할 수 없었고, 다만 소변과 설사횟수가 많은 것이 걱정되어 병원으로 후송하여 링거주사라도 맞아야겠다고 판단하고, 곧바로 피고인 2와 산모인 공소외 1을 깨워 위 영아를 인근 안양시 소재 한림대병원 응급실로 후송하였다.

⑻ 같은 날 04:30경 위 병원 응급실에 도착한 직후 당직의 공소외 2는 위 영아가 열이 나고 앓고 단지 설사만 할 뿐 다른 특이사항이 발견하지 못하자 패혈증 또는 장염으로 추정 진단하였으나, 원무과로부터 신생아실이 없다는 연락을 받고 별다른 치료 없이 타 병원에 입원하도록 권유하였고, 이에 피고인들은 다시 서울 용산구 소재 소화아동병원 신생아 응급실로 긴급후송하여 같은 날 05:35경 도착하였는데, 그 무렵 영아는 이미 의식을 잃은 상태였고, 같은 달 30. 09:20경 위 병원에서 사망하였다.

⑼ 국립과학수사연구소의 부검결과에 의하면 이 사건 영아는 설사로 인한 탈수 및 전해질 이상으로 사망한 것으로 나타났으나, 위 소화아동병원 담당의 공소외 3은 위 영아의 선행사인으로 대사성질환 및 신생아 장염으로 중간사인으로 신생아탈수, 신생아 경련, 직접사인으로 패혈증인 것으로 판단하였고, 대한의사협회에서는 로타 바이러스 등에 의해 장염으로 설사를 하고 있다가 괴사성 장염으로 급격히 진행하여 사망한 것으로 판단하였다.

B. Determination

In order to ask false Defendants for criminal fault liability for the instant infant death, the Defendants were negligent in neglecting to do so even though they could have predicted the instant accident as a postnatal care center manager, and the Defendants’ negligence was found to have directly caused the instant accident. The determination of whether there was negligence should be based on the level of general attention of ordinary workers engaging in the same kind of work as the Defendants, and the standards for the management of newborn baby of a postnatal care center, which is required by relevant statutes, etc. at the time of the instant case, should be taken into account, and it should not be said that there is no demand for the remaining excessive duty of care emphasizing only the status of the director of a postnatal care center.

As to the postnatal care center at the time of the instant case, there is no separate regulation except for fire-fighting-related statutes, the work attitude of the postnatal care center should be taken into consideration. Generally, the postnatal care center seeks to recover the body by providing appropriate meals, physical exercise methods, etc. so that the women admitted to the postnatal care center can recover the body and mind that has been abandoned by giving birth to the women admitted to the postnatal care center, and in addition, helping the newborn baby living together with the mother to help them concentrate on the postnatal care by giving breast-feeding, bath, body body, beer, smoking, singing, vaccinations, vaccinations, vaccinations, vaccinations, vaccinations, vaccinations, vaccinations, etc. As such, the head of the postnatal care center for the baby admitted to the postnatal care center has a duty to immediately inform the mother of the appropriate measures on behalf of the mother and to follow the instructions, and it is sufficient as such.

In the instant case, it cannot be said that there was a big disease due to the diversification of snow history and the frequency of snow history depending on the individual vehicle, and that the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic s, etc.

In the end, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or by misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the appeal by the defendants

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment is rendered after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as mentioned above. As stated in the above reasons for reversal, this constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Ansan-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-Un's movement formula