The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) did not appropriately convert the defendant into a lapar surgery at the time when it is necessary to convert it into a lapar surgery, and even though only one place where the context of the surgery is damaged and combined with one another, causing the death of the victim, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case by mistake of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In order to recognize a doctor’s negligence in a medical accident, the doctor was unable to anticipate the occurrence of the result despite the foreseeable of the occurrence of the result. Despite the possibility of avoiding the occurrence of the result, negligence should be examined. Determination of the existence of negligence must be based on the standard of care of ordinary persons performing the same duties and duties. In addition, the general level of medical science at the time of the accident, medical environment and conditions, characteristics of medical practice, etc. should be taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10104, Apr. 14, 201). In addition, in performing medical treatment, the doctor has a considerable discretion in choosing methods that it is deemed appropriate based on the patient’s situation, the level of medical care at the time, and his/her own knowledge and experience, and it cannot be said that one of the results of medical treatment, unless it deviates from a reasonable scope, has the burden of proof established by the public prosecutor to the extent that he/she is not guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do308).