The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is a crime as provided in Article 1-1 (1) through (3) of the decision of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (with respect to occupational and de facto death), the Defendant did not neglect N to have N possess or arbitrarily use the key of the credit cooperative for storage of native drugs. Moreover, there was no fact that N arbitrarily allowed to administer propool around June 24, 2015, and there was no fact that N allowed to administer propool. Thus, the Defendant neglected to exercise the duty of care in the course of performing his duties.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) Even if the Defendant’s breach of duty of care is recognized, N’s death was caused by the Defendant’s direct administration of propool with the help of N in the absence of the Defendant. It was not foreseeable that N would die due to the above propool administration, and it is not recognized that N would have been in a relationship between the Defendant’s breach of duty of care and N’s death.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment (as of the second trial of the first trial of the first trial of the first instance, the Defendant explicitly withdrawn the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the fact of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (excluding the above occupational and de facto death) and the violation of the Medical Service Act except for the above occupational and de facto death among the facts charged). (b) Each punishment (a crime of Article 1-1(1) through (3) of the judgment of the lower court (as of the judgment of the lower court, a crime of Articles 1-1(4) through (13), 2, 3, and 5 of the judgment of the lower court in February and

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged was known to the Defendant, at the same time, as a medical practitioner dealing with narcotics, who is addicted to the propool and DNA farms, such as the content indicated in the Victim N (N, N, 41 years old) above (based on the facts).

In such cases, the defendant is treated as N.