208 Highly Injury by occupational negligence, 1019 A.

(b) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

1.(a)(b) Al (67 years old, South) and outside doctor;

2.(a) A2 (73 years old, South) and internal medicine doctor;

2.2 b. School Foundation XX

Kim Jong-mun

Attorney Park Ha-nam (Apon for all the defendants)

October 22, 2008

Defendant A1 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Where a defendant A1 fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 60,000 won into one day: Provided, That a fractional amount shall be one day, and a sentence of punishment against a defendant A2 shall be suspended.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal History Office

1. Defendant A2

The Defendant served from May 2006 to February 2, 2007 as a fire extinguisher and a full-time doctor at UU University Hospital.

On June 12, 2006, from around 07:50 to 16:30 on the same day, the Defendant had been engaged in disguised partial efficienction using ductal diameters to remove the status of the victim V (V, 59 years old) with the help of four auxiliary doctors under the house of Section A1 at the operating room of the UUU University Hospital located in Busan Seo-gu.

The Defendant conducted an internal alarm test on the victim according to the judgment of A1 of the main rule that the victim's appearance is in disguised inside the victim's life, and the size of the pattern is too small and difficult to distinguish, and that it is necessary to confirm the bale of the bale through the internal border. The Defendant suffered injury, such as injury to food, etc., for which the victim could not know the number of treatment days, by paying due attention to the maximum in conducting an internal alarm test to check the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the bale of the fla

2. Defendant Al;

From May 200, the Defendant served as a medical doctor in U.U. University Hospital from May 200 to the present.

(a) Injury by occupational negligence;

The Defendant, at the time and place of the above 1.m., performed an operation as a dypology of disguised part using the victim’s V’s mouth.

If A2, as mentioned in the above 1. A2, who was performing an internal border test, caused a medical accident that damages the victim’s food, the Defendant immediately suspended the internal border test and took care of the damaged part of the food level, and subsequently performed a satisfying operation by checking the location of the satisfy by using the inner diameter while checking the location of the satisfying, the Defendant, despite the occupational duty of care, was difficult to check the satisfy through the inner diameter due to food damage, performed the satisfying operation on the satisfy part of the normal satfy which is not the satfy part of the sat.9cc x 0.7cm x 0.9cm x 9cm. Accordingly, the victim suffered the injury of the satisfying part of the satfying part of the satfying part of the satfy.

(b) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

Each medical person shall record in detail the matters and opinions concerning his/her medical practice.

However, on June 12, 2006, when the defendant removed the organization suspected of the above-mentioned Ga from the organization and requested the organizational pathology to conduct the organizational inspection, the defendant confirmed the result of the organizational inspection and the removal of species, and did not record it in detail in the medical records, even though it was written in detail.

3. As stated in paragraph XX 2-B of the defendant educational foundation, A1, an employee of the defendant, did not state the result of organizational examination and whether the defendant was completely removed in medical records.

Summary of Evidence

omitted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant Al: Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Articles 90 and 22(1) of the Medical Service Act; Articles 268(1)2 of the Medical Service Act; Article 268(1), 268(a) of the Criminal Act; Article 268(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 91(1), 90, and 22(1) of the Medical Service Act (the fact that the medical record is not entered)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (Defendant A1);

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of sentence (Defendant A2: Penalty of a fine not exceeding 1,00,000,000 won per day, which is deferred of the pronouncement);

Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the circumstances leading to the instant crime, as well as the circumstances agreed with the victim)

1. Order of provisional payment;

It is so decided as per Disposition for the reasons under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Freeboard