• Journal of muscle and joint health
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.30-40
• /
• 2021

Purpose: This study aims to present nurses' legal conflicts and legal basis through the precedent analysis of a crime of professional negligence resulting in death and injury for the past 20 years and provide vital references to cultivate the correct and high-level legal consciousness of nurses. Methods: This study was conducted in five stages of the systematic content analysis method. It amalyses the precedents of a crime of nurses' professional negligence resulting in death and injury from 2000 to 2020. The application system for the provision of the written judgment was used to collect precedents. A total of 67 cases were analyzed in this study, and they were classified according to the type of nursing error, and the contents were systematically analyzed. Results: A total of 52 cases (77.5%) of nursing errors were caused by independent nursing practices. They were classified as 38 cases (A1) in the violation of patient supervision obligations, 12 cases in the violation of progress observation obligations (A2), one case in the violation of medical equipment inspection obligations (A3), and one case in the violation of explanation and verification obligations. Among the non-independent nursing practices (code B), B1 was 10 cases related to administrative acts, one blood transfusion accident (B2), and one anesthesia accident (B3). Conclusion: To prevent nurses from being involved in legal confits, the advocation of systematic training such as nurses' legal obligations and judgment grounds through case-based learning from the recent precedent analysis and promote nurses' legal perspective, and preventive activities are essential.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.