If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

The defendant is a doctor in charge of G belonging to the Seoul Asan Hospital, a foundation which is a medical institution producing embryos.

When a medical institution producing embryos extracts sperm or ova to produce embryos, it shall obtain written consent from the sperm provider, ovum provider, person to undergo an operation for artificial insemination and his/her spouse.

Nevertheless, on November 20, 2008, the Defendant requested the Seoul Asan Hospital G and H (the age of 39) to perform the surgery for artificial insemination with the sperm donor I (the age of 74) from the said Seoul Asan Hospital G and H (the age of 39), and around December 5, 2008, the Defendant collected the said I’s sperm without the consent of the Council J (the death of May 7, 2010), and conducted the surgery for artificial insemination with H’s ovum on the 22th of the same month, and conducted the surgery for artificial insemination by means of transplantinging the embryos produced at H’s body on the 24th of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect by the prosecution against the defendant or H;

1. Statement of each prosecutorial statement concerning K and L;

1. A investigation report (to hear telephone statements from the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Health and Welfare);

1. I family relation certificate, I's transcript, written designation of embryo production medical institution, written consent for embryonic insemination and artificial insemination procedure, written consent for embryo production, written consent for embryo therapy, written consent for embryo therapy preservation program, H/I's extra medical records and operation records, guidelines for medical institution standards for embryo production, and the Defendant denies the existence of intention as a subjective constituent element. However, according to the above evidence, the following facts and circumstances revealed by the Defendant: ① at the time when the Defendant conducts the instant artificial insemination procedure against I and H, the Defendant was the spouse under the law of I; ② at the time of performing the instant artificial insemination procedure against I and H, H did not undergo the procedure on the ground that H visited was unmarried, while visiting the instant hospital through I and the artificial insemination; and subsequently, after visiting the M Hospital, the Defendant was the introduction of the said hospital.