Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a professor of the film department of C Hospital C in Gwangju, and D is a major of the same hospital.

Victims E (WW) was hospitalized at the above hospital on March 7, 2014 in order to treat virus infection and liver continued infection, and D, around March 7, 2014,

4. The same year under treatment after being transferred to the victim from around 26.

5. At around 21:00, in order to injecting drugs and water necessary for treatment at the dental department and the treatment room of the above hospital, the central carter inserted into the blood fryer of the victim's left side part of the body was removed, and then inserted the kyer into the fryer in the victim's chain fryer, but at around 2:00 of the same day, the victim's chest X-ray was not the one originally intended as a result of the victim's chest X-ray shooting, recognizing that the kyer was inserted into the same fyer on the fyer, not the one originally intended, and requested a compromise in the film department of the above hospital to remove the kyer under the direction of the defendant with a visual arbitration method.

On May 8, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that, as seen above, before removing the carter inserted D as above, he was located in the upper part of the upper part of the carter at the heart, he was in the upper part of the parallel beer which start from the large beer.

However, in contrast to other blood cells, in the case of immediately removing a camera located on the part above, due to a large volume of blood and strong blood pressure compared to the other blood cells, excessive blood transfusion is anticipated. In this case, the video medical surgery alone was difficult to give blood transfusion.

Therefore, the defendant was responsible for the duty of care to safely remove the carter through a compromise with scarcitys, by conducting visual tests such as CT shooting on the part in which the carter was inserted before the removal of the carter, and ascertaining the exact location of the carter and the degree of blood expected at the time of removal.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and at least 12:15, the film department of the above hospital.