The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal does not clearly confirm the victim's gate and dubing so that it has a serious change, and the defendant carried out an dubing operation for dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing, considering the complexity of the system's dubing structure, although dubing dubing operation was necessary in this process, even if dubing dubing operation was carried out through dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing operation, if it was confirmed that dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing is to be converted into dubing operation, even if dubing operation should be continued and dubing dubing dubing dubing dubing. In full view of the above facts, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. A physician may select and provide medical treatment based on the patient’s situation, the level of medical care at the time, and his/her own knowledge and experience. Thus, unless the determination of intention on the selection of the method of medical care does not deviate from a reasonable scope, it cannot be deemed that there was medical malpractice just on the ground that there was no result of the choice of a specific method of medical care. In case of a medical accident, in order to recognize a medical doctor’s negligence, the occurrence of the result was not predicted despite the foreseeable of the occurrence of the result, and even if the occurrence of the result could have been avoided, the doctor did not avoid the occurrence of the result, and the determination of whether there was negligence ought to be based on the degree of general attention of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da95635, Jun. 14, 2012).