The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal presented the following purport: (a) although the static damage caused by the instant surgery is of a size of 5 meters; (b) insofar as the Defendant was unaware of such damage at all during the instant surgery, it is recognized as occupational negligence by itself; and (c) the Korean Medical Association sent to the Korean Medical Association the following: (a) if there is more detailed attention when performing surgery in the form of frienite, which is highly likely to cause confusion; (b) it is interpreted to the effect that the Defendant caused damage to the frisome by occupational negligence during the surgery; (c) even based on the thesis related to the frimatic species, it is insignificant even if there was a large number of merger symptoms after the surgery; (d) insofar as the Defendant was unaware of such damage; and (e) insofar as the Defendant was aware of the fact that frisome was in force after the surgery; (e) if the Defendant did not remove the frisome’s central difficulty after the surgery, it is difficult to see that the Defendant did not have any risk of harm to the frier’s’s surgery itself.

2. In order to recognize a doctor's negligence in a medical malpractice case, the doctor's negligence should be examined, even if the doctor could have predicted the occurrence of the result, and the occurrence of the result was not foreseeable.