Defendants are not guilty.

1. Defendant A is a person in charge of the management of patients and facilities of the above hospital as the chief of the headquarters of the hospital, and Defendant B is an employee of the above hospital in charge of the operation of the emergency vehicle belonging to the hospital.

On December 12, 2013, the victim E (the age of 57) was divingd in a multi-faceted state around 11:40 on December 12, 2013 by the fire fighters who were dispatched after receiving a report, and was escorted to the hospital emergency room located in the former F, and the victim was confirmed to have no particular injury or physical injury, and the victim was confirmed to have been in a simple drinking state.

Since then, Defendant A instructed Defendant B to drive an emergency vehicle for Hatland, which belongs to the above hospital (hereinafter “emergency vehicle”) in order to hear the horses of nurses, such as the victim’s door-to-door and lying on the floor, which might obstruct other patients by avoiding disturbance, and in order to return home the victim, Defendant B driven the emergency vehicle at around 16:00 on the same day while putting the victim into the emergency vehicle for patients of the above emergency vehicle. Defendant B driven the said emergency vehicle and Defendant A driven the emergency vehicle to the house of the victim who was on board the front line of the above emergency vehicle, in order to get the victim’s house located in the YSI.

However, at the time, the victim was in an emergency vehicle to the extent that he was unable to get off his body. As such, the Defendants, who are to operate the victim by placing the victim in an emergency vehicle due to the foregoing circumstance, had a duty of care to protect the victim from being injured by his body in the installation, etc., by placing the victim on a contact with the patient, putting the victim on a fixed level, keeping the victim in an emergency bell and not driving the vehicle in an emergency vehicle. Defendant A, who was on board the victim’s side, was well aware of the victim’s movement, and by sufficiently examining the victim’s movement, had a duty of care to prevent the victim from being injured.

(3).