The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part causing injury to business and actual injury) 1) The Defendant established and used the medical equipment (hereinafter “Ugra”) as indicated in the lower judgment in the same output as that of the usual book, and there was negligence in failing to verify the output of the above equipment.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) Since the Defendant went away from the place of operation after completing the furnal of the victim’s right side furnal part of the body furnal of the victim’s injury, there is negligence in failing to take

subsection (b) of this section.

B. Legal misunderstanding of the legal principles (unwritten parts such as records of medical treatment) Defendant’s Rab surgery is for academic purposes and is not included in the category of medical treatment, so there is no obligation to prepare a record of medical treatment, and it is unreasonable to hold the Defendant liable only for this part, excluding the persons related to the hospital who provided the place of operation.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (the penalty of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) With respect to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on occupational and actual injury, in order to recognize the medical malpractice of medical personnel, the medical personnel’s negligence should be examined by failing to avoid the occurrence of the result despite the foreseeable of the occurrence of the result, and even if it was possible to avoid the occurrence of the result, by failing to avoid the occurrence of the result. Determination of the existence of the negligence must be based on the standard of general attention of the general person engaged in the same duties and duties. The standard should be taken into account the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions at the time of the accident, the peculiarity of medical practice, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8360, Aug. 24, 2006). 2) In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant, as a medical specialist at the time of the occurrence of the medical term and according to the evidence.