1. All the judgment below is reversed.

2. The Defendants are not guilty. 3. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 피고인 A 1) 사실오인 원심판결에는 아래와 같은 사실오인의 위법이 있다. 가) 통상적으로 천두술 특수한 추(trepan, 관추)를 사용하여 두개(頭蓋)에 작은 구멍을 뚫는 것으로 두개내혈종 등에 의하여 현저하게 두개내압이 상승할 경우에는 구급수술로서 이 수술이 행하여지는 일이 많다.

B requires about 40 hours from the time the patient moves to the operating room. Considering that Defendant A performed astronomical surgery at around 9:30 when the victim moves to the operating room, it cannot be deemed that Defendant A’s implementation of astronomical surgery for the victim was delayed.

B) In addition, even if the victim had already been in a state of no possibility of birth at the time of moving to an operation room, there is no proximate causal relation between the violation of the above duty of care and the result of the victim’s death, even if there was a violation of the above duty of care. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: Defendant A’s imprisonment without prison labor for 10 months and the cost of lawsuit) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1's association of the erroneous determination of facts, such as the appraiser's request for appraisal by the Korean Association of 1st century, it constitutes a relatively simple procedure, and even if there was no any defect in the physical structure of the victim, the victim violated the duty of care to observe when performing an institutional rhetoration by failing to perform the normal duty of care to observe when the Defendants committed the rhetoration. Defendant B, as a doctor in charge of anesthesia, violated the duty of care to observe when performing an institutional rhetoration by inserting the rhetoration into a nearby organization.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not recognize the Defendants’ breach of duty of care as above.