The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the Korean Medical Dispute Mediation Board's appraisal statement, F hospital appraisal statement, and I Association's trust statement of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the defendant, on the following grounds: the defendant, at the time of treatment of the victim, was in a situation where the victim had symptoms and signs of infinite heat, and was suspected of suffering from singinging out of the mouth, and thus, if the defendant had taken a py CT shooting, he would have confirmed the blood transfusion within the py River, conducted treatment of the non-sing heat, and did not reach the victim's death.

2. Based on its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the Defendant’s occupational negligence and the victim’s death on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship on the ground that the Defendant’s occupational negligence and the victim’s death cannot be found, even though the Defendant had a duty to conduct an additional inspection, such as BT, to eliminate the possibility of blood transfusion in the mouth when treating the victim, even though it was found that the Defendant had a duty to undergo an additional inspection, such as the Defendant’s medical malpractice in treating the victim, but did not do so.

If a doctor’s negligence on medical treatment intends to be a negligence related to a person who contributed to the death of a victim, it shall be proved that the victim would not have died unless he/she neglected his/her duty of care required, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2710, Nov. 8, 1996; 2005Do8822, Oct. 26, 2007). Examining the above judgment of the court below closely in accordance with the records and the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, prosecutors.