The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles), it is recognized that the Defendant, a dentist, was negligent in violating the duty of care of the Defendant, and the victim was found to have violated the duty of care, and the victim was found to have committed a chest-raising operation to remove the Plaintiff more than 6 times the victim D's Haak, which was next to the Defendant, and opened up to 5 times the Defendant’s Haak in the course of treating the Plaintiff while keeping the Haak in Haak, five times the Haak, and the Defendant was believed to have gone beyond Haak, and did not take other measures because he was believed to have gone beyond Haak 5 times the Haak, five times the Haak, and the victim was found to have been guilty of the fact that the Haak-chul surgery was performed to remove the Plaintiff, and thus, the causal relationship between the Defendant’s death and the Defendant’s death due to the Daak-in contribution and the death of the victim.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor’s ex officio determination (revision of indictment) leads to the following.

As seen in the above, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict of the Defendant as the primary charge, and partly modified the facts charged [1] among the facts charged, and applied for the modification of indictment with the content of adding the bodily injury caused by occupational negligence [2] as stated below, respectively, to the point of the injury caused by occupational negligence, and this Court permitted this.

Since the subject of adjudication was changed in the trial court, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, even if the judgment of the court below has such reasons for reversal of authority as above, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of the court.

[Preliminary Facts 1] The Defendant is a dentist who runs a dental clinic from May 10, 1993.

On November 23, 2011, the Defendant is located in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon on November 23, 201.