The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be forfeited from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On November 22, 2017, after the victim of misunderstanding entered G hospital at around 19:17, the day following the day 01:30 days passed without taking any particular measures until the date of commencement of anesthesia for light surgery, and the victim did not seem to have been properly performed, resulting in death at the time ten hours passed after the victim arrived at the hospital.

Therefore, there is no relation between the defendant's act of inflicting bodily injury on the victim and the death of the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (five years of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted that the lower court also argued to the same effect as this part of the allegation.

The lower court rejected the aforementioned arguments on the following grounds.

A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s back part of the victim’s ear was knife at about 3 cm with knife, and the victim was found to have died of excessive blood transfusion due to damage to the fnife and spine, and thus, the Defendant’s act directly causes the death of the victim.

B) The victim’s surgery was delayed as the defendant’s assertion

Even before the operation, the body was under pressured before the operation, and when the body of the body was opened for the operation, the victim's body seems to have been dead as the body of the victim was deep and large quantities of blood transfusion occurred. Thus, the delay in operation was the joint cause of the victim's death.

It is difficult to see it.

C) In addition, if the Defendant died of a victim with a knife with knife, even if negligence, such as delay of operation, etc., caused the victim’s death, as long as the Defendant’s act was a serious cause for the result of death, there is a causal relationship between the injury and the result of death.

2) The judgment of this Court is rendered.