[1] The case affirming the judgment below which acknowledged the negligence of a medical specialist with general surgery who did not perform appropriate diagnosis methods while treating the victim of a traffic accident

[2] Where the victim died after transferring the victim to another hospital while it is difficult to recover, the case affirming the causal relationship between the doctor's negligence in charge of pre-treatment and the death of the victim

[1] The case affirming the judgment below holding that the defendant, who is a medical specialist outside the general public, did not implement appropriate diagnosis methods to ascertain whether the defendant had long-term damage or farming formation within the resatisfic body, such as computerization of a satisfic body, etc., even after 14 days have passed since he discovered the blood species formed in the whole part of the victim's resatisfic body, and did not merely consider the cause of the symptoms of the victim's satisfic body only to the extent of aftermathic surgery, and did not take appropriate

[2] The case holding that the causal relationship between the defendant's negligence in the medical treatment and the victim's death cannot be deemed to be mitigated on the ground that the victim's death was caused by the fact that the victim had already been formed in a broad range at the time of transferring the victim to another hospital, and the leader of an organization, such as an abstract or a long-term in a dub, etc., such as a long-term within the dubus like an abstract or dubus, died while being treated as another hospital

[1] Article 268 of the former Criminal Code (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [2] Article 17 of the Criminal Code, Article 268 of the former Criminal Code (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da57701 delivered on December 5, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 188)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Dong-jin

Suwon District Court Decision 94No853 delivered on December 15, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case for the same reasons as the statement. The court of first instance, which the court below maintained, recognized the same facts as the reasons for the judgment with respect to the medical treatment performed by the defendant to the victim of this case, who is a traffic accident patient, and on the premise of such facts, did not implement proper diagnosis methods to confirm the long-term damage in the back-to long-term form, such as computerization studs and photographing, etc., or the formation of farming, even after 14 days have passed since the defendant discovered the blood species formed in the whole part of the victim's back-to-end system, and did not take proper diagnosis and treatment measures to consider the cause of the symptoms of the judgment, which is the victim's visible, only to the extent that they were bequeathed after the long-term surgery, and did not perform its duty of care in diagnosis and treatment. In light of the records, it is proper to determine this judgment, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts

2. According to the records, the victim's death was caused by dump shock, such as dump dump, etc. located in the aftermatho and dump dump dump, which resulted from the wide range of the blood species of the aftermathodum dump and the dump dump dump dump dump shock. Even if the victim's dump dump dump, such as dump dump dump dump dump, had no direct connection with the victim's death, and the victim's dump dump dump was found to have no direct relation with the victim's death. After the defendant discovered the dump dump of the aftermatho and found the long-term damage and the dump quantity of the aftermathodum, and

Furthermore, according to the records, it can be acknowledged that the victim had already formed a wide range of farming patterns at the time of transferring the victim to the Ansan Hospital of Korea University, and that the leader of the organization, such as an extracted organs and a organs in the latter part of the body, such as a organs in the aftermath and spath place, had already been faced with difficult conditions (no evidence can be found to prove that there was negligence on the part of the general public who treated the victim at the Aamama Hospital). As such, the causal relationship between the defendant's medical negligence and the victim's death cannot be deemed to be severed because the victim died while receiving medical treatment by transferring the victim to the Aama Hospital.

Therefore, there is a causal relationship between the defendant's medical negligence and the victim's death. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a causal relationship as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)