The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is clear that the victim had attempted to undergo an operation even if he had previously received an operation from the defendant, even though the defendant fulfilled the duty of explanation as stated in the facts charged. The victim did not have any objection or criticism when undergoing an operation for an autopsy, and therefore, there is no causation between the defendant's violation of the duty of explanation and the injury suffered by the victim.

B. It is unreasonable to interpret the scope of injury excessively wide to recognize that the victim suffered bodily injury because the blood transfusion was delayed in the course of an operation.

2. Determination

A. In order to recognize a medical employee’s negligence in a medical accident, the medical employee’s negligence could have predicted or avoided the occurrence of the outcome, even though he/she was able to have predicted or avoided the occurrence of the outcome, should be recognized. In determining the existence of such negligence, the standard of the ordinary person’s care engaging in the same work and duties should be based on the level of medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, and the specificity of the medical practice

In addition, even if the doctor violated the duty of explanation and caused injury to the victim, there is a proximate causal relationship between the victim's injury and the doctor's breach of the duty of explanation or mistake in the process of acceptance in order to be held liable for criminal liability due to negligence in the course of business.

Therefore, if a doctor fulfilled the duty to explain to the victim, if there is a circumstance to deem that the victim refused the doctor's treatment, a proximate causal relationship can be acknowledged between the doctor's violation of the duty to explain and the injury of the

On the other hand, even if there are some types of violation of duty of care, which constitute occupational negligence as stated in the facts charged, it shall be judged not guilty separately.