All of the appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants and Defendant B are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion), the victim did not have sufficiently explained about the danger of the operation in the local inhale method, and even though the victim clearly stated that there was no consent to the surgery, the court below attempted without any grounds to the effect that there was no evidence to deem that the defendant A violated the duty to explain, or that it is difficult to deem the victim to have refused the operation even if the victim had given such explanation. While the defendant B stated his opinion in the medical record but did not take all necessary measures such as observation and treatment, he was remarkably negligent in the duty of care. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of some charges on different grounds, such as that the defendant did not recognize the progress observation or treatment by violating the rules of evidence, or by misunderstanding of legal principles on medical negligence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In light of the attitude of the victim's negligence in the operation process and the degree of injury suffered by the victim, the court below's decision of unfair sentencing is unfair.

B. Defendant B used by the Defendant in the course of an operation to extract the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her shes from the surgery