The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the reasons for appeal, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize that the victim died due to negligence of leaving his/her domicile and leaving the victim alone, he/she was not guilty of the facts of mistake, which are the primary facts charged of this case, even though he/she had a low-frequency therapy knee attached to his/her low-frequency therapy knee and did not have a low-frequency therapy, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. A. In the trial of the ex officio decision prosecutor, the facts charged against the instant occupational injury and actual injury are maintained as the primary facts charged, and the name of the offense was “the injury and injury caused by duty” as stated below, and the application for changes in the indictment was filed by this court to add the ancillary facts charged as stated below. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, which is examined below despite the above reasons for reversal.

[Additional Preliminary Facts] The Defendant is a physical clinic of G hospital located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City F.

On November 14, 2013, at around 10:00, the Defendant was in charge of the physical therapy for the victim H (94) in the water treatment room located on the first floor below the above G G hospital. The victim has a duty of care to prevent the patient’s abortion by taking measures, such as setting a drum for the prevention of fall down in the beds, and by taking measures to prevent the patient’s abortion accident, as a person engaged in physical therapy for the patient in the contact with medical care, who is in charge of physical therapy for the patient in the aged.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and attached knee to the injured party's knee-knee-knee-knee-knee-knee-knee-kne-kne