[1] The requirements and criteria for the recognition of medical workers' negligence in a medical accident

[2] In a case where the defendant, an intern of a hospital, was prosecuted on charges of causing death by death by death by death by death by death, etc. as a result of the supply of oxygen suspended due to negligence that did not liquid liquid load while he was killed in an emergency vehicle and transferred a patient Gap to another hospital according to the direction of the doctor in charge, the case holding that the judgment below which recognized the defendant's crime by occupational negligence by death by death by death by death by death by death by death by death by death by death, etc. was erroneous in misapprehending legal principles

[1] In order to recognize a medical worker’s negligence in a medical accident, it shall be recognized that a medical worker could have predicted or avoided the occurrence of the outcome, even though he/she could have predicted or avoided such occurrence. In determining whether such negligence exists, the standard for the degree of common attention of an ordinary person engaged in the same work and duties should be based on the standard. Accordingly, the general level of medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions at the time of the accident,

[2] In a case where the defendant, who was a hospital intern, was prosecuted for the death of the patient Gap, who was in charge of the first-aid service after burning the patient Gap who was in charge of the first-aid service to another hospital, due to negligence that did not have the liquid load in the mountain, and the supply of the oxygen was interrupted by the discontinuance of the supply of the oxygen, the case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the duty of care on the part of the defendant's duty of care when it was found that the defendant, who was in charge of the first-aid service, was in charge of the duty of care to verify the oxygen load in the field of the first-aid service while transferring the patient Eul to the patient Eul, was in charge of the first-aid service. However, if the defendant did not take proper measures as expected for the first-aid medical personnel who was in charge of the first-aid service, but did not have the duty of care on the part of the defendant's injury after the lack of oxygen or on the part of the defendant's duty of care in the field of duty of care.

[1] Article 268 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 268 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Do294 Decided September 20, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3090 Decided August 11, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do104 Decided April 14, 201 (Gong2011Sang, 960)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Lour Law Firm, Attorneys Jeong-young et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 2009No3100 Decided November 25, 2009

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to recognize a medical worker’s negligence in a medical accident, the medical worker’s negligence that could have predicted or avoided the occurrence of the outcome, despite being able to avoid it, should be recognized. Determination of the existence of such negligence must be based on the standard of common attention of the person who performs the same duties and duties, and the standard of the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, medical environment and conditions, characteristics of the medical practice, etc. shall be taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do294, Sept. 20, 2007; 2010Do10104, Apr. 14, 2011).

2. A. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) as to the facts charged in this case where the Defendant, who served as an intern at the port located in the judgment of the lower court, moved the victim, who was the next patient transferred to the emergency room of the above hospital, to the medical center located in Daegu, by burning the patient into the emergency medical center in accordance with the order of co-defendant 1 of the above department of the first medical clinic of the hospital; and (b) as a result of the suspension of the supply of oxygen between about 18 minutes out of the transport by negligence and negligence, caused the death of the victim, such as the closure of the vehicle, etc.:

In other words, the defendant, who took the part in the process of transferring the victim, who is an emergency patient, with the intention of co-defendant in accordance with the order of the court below, was an dive patient absolutely required by the supply of oxygen. Therefore, it is recognized that the defendant's occupational duty of care to safely transfer the patient by making the patient go to the patient by making the patient go to the near hospital or 119 emergency squad contact with the near hospital and the 119 emergency squad to replace the oxygen and continuously moving the oxygen. However, it is recognized that the defendant has a duty of care to safely transfer the patient by making the patient go to the patient without paying attention to how much the amount of oxygen of the oxygen until the time when he talks that the mother of the fluent victim fells in the oxygen due to the lack of oxygen and the flusium of the flusium of the flusium until the flusium of the flusium has not been paid to the victim.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to the evidence and records adopted by the first instance court maintained by the court below, an intern is a person who has obtained a doctor's license and takes practical skills in each clinical subject exclusively to a certain training hospital, and the defendant was instructed by the co-defendant of the first instance medical department, who is the doctor in charge, when boarding the first instance medical department, as a whole, by faithfully implementing the instructions as an amperging and a per se administration, and there is no other instruction given by the defendant to confirm the oxygen balance of the oxygen during the transfer. In addition, it is not easy to estimate the pressure attached to the oxygen and the number of the oxygen flow meters through the number expressed in the medical college education and internship, and it is not easy for the defendant to take such education as well as the fact that the defendant was unable to know the fact that the defendant was ordinarily equipped with and used for emergency medical services necessary in the process of transferring patients and the emergency medical services at the time of the operation of the hospital or the fact that the defendant was unable to know such situation immediately after the operation of the hospital.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the defendant, who is a co-defendant in charge, has a duty of care to confirm the content of the oxygen, which is ordinarily kept in the first-aid vehicle, prior to boarding the vehicle or during the transfer of the vehicle, during the transfer of the vehicle, in accordance with the orders of the court below, a co-defendant in charge, has a duty of care to confirm the content of the oxygen located in the first-aid vehicle. However, if the defendant discovered an error in the supply of the oxygen within the first-aid vehicle to the victim, but did not take proper measures as expected to be taken against the medical person who was taken on the first-aid vehicle while the defendant discovered an error in the supply of the oxygen, then it is deemed that there was an occupational negligence. However, it cannot be said that the defendant violated

C. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged on the premise that the defendant, an intern, has a duty of care to verify the residual amount of oxygen located in an emergency medical vehicle, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the intern's duty of care in an emergency medical act, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)