In a case where: (a) the Defendant, a dentist, was in the process of generating the Victim A’s Hak No. 6 poppy, and (b) 5 popia was inserted into the engine through Party A’s flag; (c) the engine color and waste collection occurred; (d) he was transferred to a general hospital, and was performed a fright removal operation through a frighter, but died, the case recognizing the Defendant’s injury by occupational negligence; and (b) the Defendant was in death.

In a case where the Defendant, a dentist, was fluor in the process of generating the victim Gap's Haak 6th A's Haak, was fluoral 5 patal am in the process of inserting the victim's pathal 6th am, was inserted into the engine by Gap's ambal ambal ambling and the ambal embal amblings occurred after being transferred to a general hospital after being performed an operation for removing the ambal ambling through a chest, the case held that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have caused the victim to go beyond the ambal ambal, but the Defendant did not take follow-up measures such as promptly photographing the ambal ambal ambling or moving the ambal ambal to a hospital capable of photographing the ambal ambal, and further, the causal relation between the Defendant's death and the death of the ambal ambal and the injury caused by occupational negligence is recognized.

Articles 17 and 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Fluence and two others

Attorney Park So-young

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Da3105 Decided December 4, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

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

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant, a dentist, was negligent in violating his duty of care, and the victim was found to have violated his duty of care on the ground that it was found that the defendant, a dentist, was aware that the defendant did not take any other measures because the defendant knew that the 5th 5th 4th 5th 5th 5th 5th 6th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 19.

2. Determination

(a) Ex officio determination (Changes in indictment);

On the other hand, the prosecutor applied for the permission of modification of indictment to add part of the facts charged to [the preliminary facts charged 1] among the facts charged, and the injury caused by occupational negligence 2] to each of the facts charged, and the court permitted the permission of modification of indictment to add the facts of the injury caused by occupational negligence as stated below.

The judgment of the court below is no longer possible because the subject of the judgment was changed in the trial court. However, even if the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal of official authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the

[Preliminary Prosecutions 1]

The Defendant is a dentist who operates ○○○ dental clinic from May 10, 1993.

On November 23, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around 11:30, the dental clinic located in Jungcheon-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, using an equipment for taking measures against the victim (the age of 79 at the time of death) so as to remove the affected child from the victim’s body by neglecting his/her duty of care. In such cases, the person engaged in the dental treatment of the victim, who immediately ceased the treatment and caused the fright to remove the fright from the victim’s entrance into the hospital so that the frighter can be promptly confirmed whether the frighter might cause harm to the victim’s body due to an oral or connected organ that could cause harm to the victim, and thus, the Defendant could promptly examine the body condition of the affected child, such as the frighter, if the frighter fright enters the hospital, and such fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright flaf.

However, the Defendant neglected such duty of care and continued to take up the 5th ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the amb

Ultimately, due to the above occupational negligence, the Defendant inserted 5 poppy of the victim into the machinery site through the victim’s attitude. The time goes after the victim’s engine, and caused satis and finites, etc. to occur in the engine site, resulting in a brue brea, etc., and caused the victim to suffer from symptoms, such as a brue brea, etc., due to the satisfying between the satisf and the living body. As a result, on November 25, 2011, the Defendant had the victim undergo a surgery to remove brue through a chestr at the △△△△ Hospital on the ground of the copic long-term brue certificate by telegraphb medication after the chest surgery, which resulted in death at the △△ Hospital around January 10, 2012.

【Reserve charge 2】

The Defendant is a dentist who operates ○○○ dental clinic from May 10, 1993.

On November 23, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around 11:30, the dental clinic located in Jungcheon-gu Daejeon, Daejeon used an equipment for taking measures against the victim (the age of 79 at the time of death) to remove the son No. 6; (b) caused by negligence in the course of giving care to the victim; and (c) removed the son No. 5 out of the fright of the victim, whose body the fright of the victim was over, by neglecting the duty of care. In such cases, the person engaged in dental treatment should immediately stop the treatment and remove the fright from the victim’s entrance, so as to prevent the fright from getting out of the victim’s awareness or road; and (d) if the fright infant enters the fright road beyond the victim’s fright, such fright may be promptly confirmed on the part of the victim’s body by using the equipment for taking measures to remove the fright fright fright fright fright, etc., and thus, the victim’s body is likely to suffer.

However, the Defendant neglected such duty of care and continued to take up the 5th ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the ambath of the amb

Ultimately, due to the above occupational negligence, the Defendant inserted the victim's subordinate bad 5 hours into the victim's engine site through the victim's attitude. According to the passage of time, the victim's engine is deep and frighted within the victim's engine site, and the Plaintiff generated fright and fright, etc. and caused the victim to suffer pulmonary distress, etc., and the victim suffered injury, such as pulmonary pulmonary pulmone and pulmonary shield.

[Name of Preliminary Crime]

Occupational Injury Injury

B. Determination of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged by the prosecutor (the preliminary facts charged 1 is merely a more specifically specified content of the primary facts charged, and thus, it is so decided)

1) Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant is a dentist who operates ○○○ dental clinic from May 10, 1993.

On November 23, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around 11:30, the dental clinic located in Jungcheon-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, where the victim (the age of 79 at the time of death) took care of 6 poppy of the victim; (b) caused the victim’s occupational negligence by neglecting his/her duty of care; and (c) removed the abandoned infant from the victim’s entrance; (d) on the grounds that, as a person engaged in dental treatment, he/she immediately ceased the treatment of the victim; and (e) removed the abandoned infant from the victim’s body condition so that the abandoned infant may not go beyond the victim’s awareness or view; and (e) it is possible for the victim to promptly verify whether the abandoned infant entered the body of the victim, such as the foppy or the foppy, might cause harm to the victim’s body due to infection, etc.; and (e) it is possible for the victim to promptly check whether the abandoned infant entered the body of the victim, such as the foppy or fopter.

However, the Defendant neglected such duty of care, and continued to take the 6th Adore No. 5 on the part of Adore No. 5 on the part of Adore No. 6 on the part of Adore No. 5 on the part of the Defendant, and failed to promptly remove Adore 5 on the mouth. Moreover, the Defendant did not take any measures for the injury of the victim without properly grasping the status of the victim, even though Adore 5 on the part of Adore Dore Dore Dore, and did not take any measures for the injury of the victim. Rather, the Defendant did not take any subsequent measures for the Plaintiff, such as electric power supply to another hospital and shooting of X-ray, so that the Plaintiff could verify whether Adore hure la was coming into the port after the lapse of time.

Ultimately, the Defendant, due to the above occupational negligence, inserted 5 poppy of the victim into the machinery site through the victim’s attitude. The Defendant, along with the passage of time, frightened the victim’s engine inside the body site and caused the victim to suffer brupt pulmone, etc., and caused the victim to suffer brupt pulmone, etc., due to a bruction between the fluor and the human body system. As a result, on November 25, 2011, △△△ Hospital performed an operation to remove brupt brue through a bruptr, etc., on the ground of the fruptive long-term bruction by telegraphic medication after the fruction, caused the death at △△ Hospital around January 10, 2012.

2) The lower judgment

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant neglected his/her duty of care as a dentist solely based on the evidence submitted by

A) In the case where the victim suffered a variety of diseases, which is close to the age of 80, and for the reason that the victim spawn used drugs, the victim spawn and g were considerably weak due to the fact that the victim spawn around 80 years old, the defendant seems to have spawned the above spawn as the spawn body.

B) The primary reason for the victim to have flicked the flicker was that the victim flicked the flicker due to the flicker, etc.

C) The victim did not brupt a serious accident that occurred when a foreign substance, such as the brusian, entered the ship, and did not appeal for symptoms, such as respiratory distress or breast pain. As such, the Defendant determined that the brusian was beyond a brusian, rather than a brusian, and determined that the brusian was in excess of a brusian, and completed the brusing of the frusian, and stayed in a waiting room for about one hour, while examining the state of the victim and allowing the victim to return to the victim who did not appeal any special inconvenience.

D) The victim visited the victim again at P.M. on the same day. At this time, the victim did not make an oral statement, such as that the victim is inconvenienceed with regard to the skin skin, and the Defendant did not contact the victim when there is any abnormal symptoms with the victim, or sent the victim back to X-ray.

3) The Inquiry Agency

A) Facts of recognition

According to the court below's decision and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts are recognized.

① From May 10, 1993, the Defendant is a dentist operating ○○○ dental clinic. The victim has received dental treatment from the Defendant using the above dental clinic for at least ten years.

② At around 11:30 on November 23, 201, the Defendant: (a) 11:30, using a dental clinic, laid the upper part of the body part of the victim, which had already been laid down by the dental clinic; (b) laid the flasium No. 5 in the flasing body of the Plaintiff; and (c) was designed to prevent the Defendant’s use of the equipment from spreading the surrounding flascing the flas.

③ Prior to the Defendant’s gathering of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff turned back to the Defendant. At the time, the victim did not come to the Plaintiff, but did not have been affected by the physical appearance when the Plaintiff went to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff contracted to her head, did not cause a little inconvenience, and continued to do so (Article 93, 94 of the Evidence Records). At the time, the Defendant stated at the police that “The Defendant stated that “the victim, who was 5 pina, got out of the 5 pina, got out of the son, did not seem to do so, and the son did not seem to do so later,” and that the Defendant returned to her home, i.e., the Defendant determined that the son was out of the way of 6 pina, not the son, and the Defendant determined that the son was out of the way of her mouth, and that the victim was out of her home, and that the victim was not able to have been discharged by her pina.

④ The injured party does not have a blood transfusion on the same day. The injured party visited the above dental clinic again, and continued the invasion (Evidence No. 95 pages).

⑤ On November 24, 2011, 201, the day following the day on which the victim was discovered, the victim visited members of the L/C to undergo the diagnosis of “patatitis”, “fatitis fatitis”, “fatch fatitis”, “fatch fatch part”, and “patch fatitis” (Evidence No. 21 of the evidence record). On November 25, 2011, the victim visited members of the L/C at L/C at L/C again, and the doctor continued to have fatch and fatch fatt fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat.

④ On November 25, 2011, the victim transferred to △△ University Hospital on November 25, 201, and the pulmonary instruments and Nonindicted 2 professor attempted to perform internal cryp operations to remove crypology at the victim’s institutional site for one hour and thirty minutes, but eventually failed.

7) As seen above, the victim was unable to perform an internal crypt operation on the same day, and the crypt removal operation was carried out with the chest and Nonindicted 3 professor’s house at night. After the operation, the victim discharged the victim on December 3, 201 through normal recovery process, and the physical function of the victim was not abnormal at the time of discharge.

8) On December 6, 2011, the victim was hospitalized in △△ University Hospital on December 6, 201, which was three days after the discharge of the victim, once he/she was hospitalized in the △△ University Hospital again as a acute infection with a interpreter on December 6, 201. On the seventh day of the same month, immediately after he/she administered a steering preparation for the shooting (CT) shooting, the victim's heart boom was suspended for about 20 minutes due to side effects (i.e., he/sheal shock), and the victim's consciousness was not recovered until 10:0 a.m. of the same month. The victim was in a state that he/she did not have sufficient repulmone until he/she died after the heart stop. The victim was in a state that he/she was unlikely to suffer acute vision due to side effects caused by the steering system (the inquiry report at △△ University Hospital Hospital on October 31, 2014).

9. On January 10, 2012, the victim died at the △△ University Hospital as the direct death of the victim, the multi-presidential long-term typology, the senior secretary, and the senior secretary.

(10) The injured party was under the procedure of removing the ray of brain sewage in around 1993. On April 2002, the injured party was under the procedure of hospitalized treatment as a wingitis, around 2003. Around October 2002, the injured party was under the procedure of wing out wing out to be under the procedure of wing out to be under the procedure of wing out, and around January 6, 2010, the injured party was under the procedure of being under the procedure of wing out to be under the procedure of wing out wing out to be under the procedure of breaking out to be under the procedure.

11. In the event that foreign substances were transferred to a road, most early reaction mostly led to a stimulative, qualitative, or area phenomenon, however, the occurrence of a stimulation of foreign substances into an engine and the occurrence of the “stimulation of anti-stimulative action” by the engine (do), thereby causing the symptoms of the initial stimulative disorder. During this period, patients are misunderstanding that foreign substances were not unlikely to stimulated or went out to stimulated (Public Trial Record No. 414 pages, Statement of the Korean Medical Association).

(12) In the case of a senior victim with the foregoing king force, and even if foreign substances are inserted into the flag, there is a possibility that the victim does not show severe weather or pulmonal difficulty, unlike ordinary people, or that he does not feel well with the neck of neck (the witness Nonindicted 3’s testimony).

(13) If a foreign substance, such as spawn, entered the patient's neck, such a foreign substance as spawn, is a substance that can be seen well in the patient's radioactive photograph, and thus, it is necessary to grasp almost accurate location only by simple radiation photograph, and as a rapid diagnosis is essential for treatment without any spawn certificate, X-RAY is required to be taken such as simple chest photographs (in the trial record, 406 pages, inquiry letter by the Korean Dental Association), and dental colleges, educational institutions such as dental colleges, etc. shall guide the dentist in charge to check the location of the substance and guide him/her so that he/she can take a spawn image while preventing the patient from immediately taking place in the spawn attitude, and when the patient's situation is stable, provide education to confirm the location of the substance and to request the relevant medical specialist (the examination report by the Korean Medical Association, No. 414 of the trial record, the Korean Medical Association).

(14) At the time the victim was brought to a △△ University Hospital on November 25, 201, the collection of waste due to the closure of the engine was underway for the victim, and the diagnosis name is the waste collection and the closure of the engine’s paper (as of November 29, 2012, the trial record No. 229, Nov. 27, 2012, and the inquiry letter about the fact-finding University Hospital as of October 31, 201, and the inquiry letter about the fact-finding University Hospital as of October 31, 2014)

(15) The medical records of the victim prepared by the defendant contain the medical language "introgengens", which is a medical language of "incogens" or "incogens causing the doctor" (Evidence No. 20 of evidence, No. 406 of the trial records, and inquiry inquiry by the Korean Dentists Association).

피고인은 피해자가 △△대학교병원에 입원한 후인 2011. 12. 16. 피해자의 하악 5번 치아가 부러져 기관지로 들어간 경위를 묻는 피해자의 아들 공소외 4에게 “식도로 넘어가고 기도로 넘어가지 않았다고 판단하였다. 원래 오실 때부터 좀 기침을 하였는데, 그때 조치를 전혀 안 했다. 하악 6번 치아를 발치한 후에도 피해자가 기침을 조금 하여 혹시 하는 생각이 들었지만 좀 밖에 앉아계시게 하라고만 하였고, 다시 내원하였을 때에도 피가 안 멎는 것에 조치를 하고 기침하는 것에 대해서는 신경을 쓰지 못했다.”고 말하였고(증거기록 제93, 94쪽), 피해자 가족들에게 피해자의 치료비를 부담하겠다는 의사를 표시하였다(증거기록 제97쪽).

B) Determination

(1) Whether the defendant was negligent in medical treatment, treatment, etc.

Considering the fact that the victim has been suffering from several diseases that are close to the age of 80, and was melting drugs, and that the equipment used by the defendant was designed to prevent the victim from spreading around her, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was fluoring the above fluor as the defendant was fluoring the above fluor, in the situation where the fluor and ging of the fluor were considerably weak, and the defendant was fluoring the above fluor, and that the fluor was fluoring the fluoring part of the victim's fluoring part of the victim's fluoring part of the fluoring part of the victim's fluoring part of the victim's fluoring part of the fluoring part of the victim's fluoring part of the victim's fluoring part of the fluoring part of the defendant's negligence.

However, as seen earlier, a dentist is required to induce the victim to leave out of 5 p.m., while leaving 6 p.m. the victim’s post-explosive c., so that the victim could not take any more than 5 p.m. post-explic c., and the victim could not take any necessary measures to check the location of the victim’s c.i.e., chest and duc radioactive photo when the patient’s situation is stable. ② If foreign substances within c.m. are carried within 3 p.m., it is necessary to take measures to check the victim’s location only by simple radioactive photo, and if the victim did not take any necessary measures to promptly transfer x c.m. to the surrounding hospital after c., the victim did not have any specific x c., even if x c., the victim did not have any specific x c., on the ground that he did not have any specific x c.m. to find out the victim’s family c.

(2) Whether there exists a causal relationship between the defendant's occupational negligence and the victim's death

The conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10895, Dec. 9, 2010, etc.).

Even if the above occupational negligence is recognized to the defendant, the victim's death should have been caused by the defendant's negligence in order to bear the responsibility of occupational negligence or death.

However, the court below determined that the victim was hospitalized in △△ University Hospital on December 6, 201 with acute infection accompanied by a interpreter on December 6, 201. On the seventh day of the same month, immediately after the operation of an early preparation for shooting, the victim's heart gambling was suspended for about 20 minutes due to side effects (i.e., heatic shock) through an early preparation system, and the victim's consciousness was not recovered by 10:0 a.m. on the 9th day of the same month. The victim was in a state where he was unable to fully pulmon before the death of January 10, 2012. The victim did not prove that there was a high possibility of acute pregnancy due to side effects caused by the early preparation system, and there was no evidence to prove that there was no causal relation between the victim's death and the early preparation secretary, and the victim's death directly among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on January 10, 2012.

(3) Sub-determination

As seen earlier, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine that determined that the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, did not adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment. The prosecutor’s assertion on this part of the facts charged (i.e., “preliminary charges 1” is not well-grounded in the content of the primary facts charged, and thus, it is difficult to separately determine as to the facts charged in the instant case, since it

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading, since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as seen earlier, and the defendant is guilty [2].

The facts constituting the offense against the accused recognized by this Court are as described in Article 2-1 (2) (2).

1. The defendant's partial statement in the original judgment and in the original trial;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of some police officers against the defendant;

1. A patient treatment register prepared by the defendant;

1. A written appraisal of the preparation of the Medical Doctors Association;

1. Each fact-finding reply to the Korean Medical Association and △△ University Hospital;

1. Records of the initial stage of hospitalization, records of operation, a day-book, and records of recording;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

§ 268 of the Criminal Code. Selection of fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The defendant and his defense counsel observe the victim's honor closely for more than one hour, but in general, there were no symptoms that may occur when foreign substances are inserted into a flag, and in preparation for the case, if symptoms appear, immediately after giving a detailed explanation to the nearby hospital along with the cautions, the defendant cannot be deemed to have neglected the defendant's duty of care in the following measures.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances such as Article 2-2(b)(3)(b)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s negligence in breach of duty of care caused the victim to be closed down and closed down. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

The instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s failure to take appropriate follow-up measures against the victim, who has been placed in the process of treatment, thereby resulting in the victim’s pulmonary color and pulmonary wasteing, and thus, the relevant criminal liability is not minor.

However, since the victim had been affected before the birth of the baby, and the general reaction can not be seen when the baby was scarcityd due to the elderly age, it seems difficult to distinguish it as the defendant, and there seems to be some circumstances to consider the circumstances of this case. The defendant paid part of the medical expenses of the victim (3.8 million won) after the victim got scarcity operation, and other sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. shall be determined as per the disposition, comprehensively considering all of the sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and consequence of the crime.

The summary of the facts charged by occupational negligence and death, which are the primary facts charged of the instant case, is as stated in Article 2-2(b)(1) and the summary of the facts charged by occupational negligence and death is as stated in Article 2-2(a) [1].

This constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime for the reasons as seen earlier, and thus should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty of a crime causing bodily injury by occupational negligence as stated in the judgment of two preliminary charges

Judges Yellow Pyeong (Presiding Judge)