A. The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles has fulfilled his duty to explain in the instant procedure against the victim, has not violated his duty of care as a doctor, and the victim could have suffered side effects by failing to comply with the Defendant’s medical instruction. However, the lower court convicted him of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (fine 1,500,000) against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the judgment of the court below which found the guilty of the facts charged in this case is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

1) In order to recognize medical malpractices of medical personnel, the medical personnel’s negligence should be examined by negligence that did not anticipate the occurrence of the result even though the occurrence of the result could have been predicted, and even if the occurrence of the result could have been avoided. Determination of the existence of negligence should be based on the standard of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same duties and duties, and the standard of medical level at the time of the accident, medical environment and conditions, special characteristics of medical practice, etc. should be taken into account (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8980, Dec. 24, 2009). (2) According to the above evidence, the victim’s interest, such as the Red half-rums, anti-de and anti-insurines, and the injury of the dead mother of his or her part of his or her anti-insurine (hereinafter “the instant injury”), as stated in the facts charged by the victim, is one of the following acts.