Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Of the facts charged in the case of mistake of facts, as to the violation of the aggravated duty of explanation, the surgery of this case was conducted not by cosmetic type surgery but by treatment prior to donation, so the defendant does not bear an aggravated duty of explanation, and there is no causation between the violation of the duty of explanation and the injury of the victim.

② As to the violation of the duty to evade the procedure, the victim at the time of the instant surgery was in a state that requires attention to the operation, such as a dystye, as the flaf has been milked on the left side of the sexual flag, but the victim was not obliged to evade the procedure because it was impossible to perform the operation different from the dystye, or that the inserting of a dystye type is not prohibited.

③ As to the breach of the duty of care in the management of the operating room and the duty of care in the post management, the Defendant fulfilled the duty of care in the sanitary management and post management of the operating room at the time of the instant operation.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 10 million imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. We examine whether the instant surgery, which inserted the sound warning type into the victim’s sexual organ, constitutes a cosmetic surgery for the purpose of treatment, and the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, stated that the victim had no particular problem in the strength (No. 22 pages of evidence No. 1) around June 17, 2008, which is before the instant surgery, there was no other evidence that the victim suffered from the advance of the instant surgery, and ② the victim suffered from the advance of the instant surgery.