The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for a period of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (2016 highest 3462), the lower court determined to the effect that the deceased was unfit for undergoing an operation even though the deceased’s low-income disease was a symptoms for the adaptation of the said retail saving surgery or not impeding the operation. At the time of the second operation, the deceased had already been proved to have been infected by blood transfusion.

Although there is no clear basis to see it, it was readily recognized, and the hospital operated by the Defendant was not equipped with the facilities of the heavy patient room.

The defendant's medical practice and the deceased's death are presumed to have been presumed to have been presumed, and there is an error of law due to mistake in facts.

In addition, on the basis of the above mistake of facts, the defendant is negligent in violating the duty of all of the defendant.

On the other hand, all of the defendant's operations, including the second operation, had been in an appropriate way to prevent any leakage of literature, and even if at the time of the second operation, the deceased had already been suffering from satisfy.

Even if the defendant's treatment is appropriate, there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles such as recognizing the defendant's medical negligence on the basis of the fact that the defendant did not make any more decisions on the whole to a higher hospital.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment without prison labor) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case’s judgment ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for occupational and practical negligence at the Seoul High Court on January 30, 2018, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 11, 2018.

Since each crime of the court below against the defendant and the above crime of occupational negligence and the crime of occupational negligence against the defendant for which judgment has become final and conclusive, the punishment shall be sentenced in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent crimes by a group pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act in the concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act

In this respect, the judgment of the court below can be maintained.