The Criminal Division 4 of the Suwon District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Hee-seok) on the 7th dismissed both the defendant's and the prosecutor's appeals in the appellate trial of Doctor A, who was indicted on charges of professional negligence resulting in death. The bench upheld the original ruling, sentencing the defendant to six months in prison with one year of probation, identical to the first-instance ruling.

A is accused of causing a perforation in the intestine due to negligence while performing a colonoscopy on a female patient in her 50s, identified as B, at a general hospital in Danwon-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi Province, on October 15, 2021, and failing to take appropriate measures afterward, leading to the patient's death. According to the investigation, A was found to have caused a perforation in B's colonic diverticulum by applying excessive force after losing direction during the endoscope insertion process.

After completing the procedure to suture the perforated area on the day of the accident, A discharged B on the 23rd of the same month. However, A did not instruct the patient, who had suffered an intestinal perforation, to immediately visit the emergency room if she experienced abdominal pain or fever upon discharge. As a result, B experienced lower abdominal pain after being discharged but, without suspecting it was a complication of the perforation, visited an orthopedic clinic first. She was eventually transferred to a higher-level hospital but died on November 7 of the same year from acute peritonitis and septic shock.

The appellate bench noted that the victim visited an orthopedic clinic because she did not know the cause of her pain, concluding that it was difficult to consider that sufficient explanation had been provided at the time of discharge. The court also added that the original sentence did not fall outside a reasonable range.

Previously, the first-instance court had imposed the same sentence, taking into account factors such as A's lack of prior criminal record and the fact that a related civil ruling had been finalized and compensation had been paid. In response, A's side appealed, arguing that there was no negligence or breach of duty to explain during the colonoscopy procedure and that the causal relationship with the death was insufficient. However, the ruling was not overturned in the appellate trial.