beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant alleged misunderstanding of the legal principles stated the classification code of the disease of this case as D Hospital (the first diagnosis) and N Hospital (the diagnosis after operation) on February 8, 2013, and diagnosed that the Defendant still had a new life on the A-board surface at N Hospital around September 2013, which was diagnosed to have been verified. After that the operation record was modified in the process of confirming the operation record, etc., and confirmed that the first operation record was stated as removing “A-board leaves” rather than “A-ray leaves.” On the first operation record, the Defendant entered the classification code of the disease of this case into D440 (the first diagnosis after operation) at D Hospital and N Hospital (the first diagnosis after operation), while the D Hospital only Ma404 (the type of training) at D Hospital had no possibility that the Defendant had a serious problem in the process of the operation of this case, even if the Defendant did not have a complete operation, it was found that there was no possibility that the Defendant had any problem in the operation of this case.
It is reasonable to believe that there was a good reason to believe that there was a good reason.
Therefore, the defendant did not indicate false facts, but did not have the awareness that he was false at least.
B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed an act identical to the facts charged in this case in the mind that another victim would not have occurred, defamation should be avoided in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act, and the illegality should also be avoided even if it constitutes a justifiable act that is reasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant did not use physical evidence, and that the obstruction of business was not long, and that the period was not long.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.
B. The lower court’s argument that sentencing is unfair.