Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a doctor operating the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “E Council member” in Eunpyeong-gu.

At around 17:30 on February 22, 2012, the Defendant performed an autopsy on the Victim F (F, female, 55 years of age).

In such cases, the defendant, who is a medical doctor, has a duty of care to explain the content of after-the-counter treatment, etc. that can occur to the victim before performing the surgery, and to confirm whether there is any symptoms such as whether there is any drug or drug that the victim is able to take.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such duty of care and neglected to explain the simple operation process to the victim, and without explaining or confirming it, caused additional blood transfusions during the operation due to occupational negligence, and suffered injury with which the number of days of treatment can not be known due to side effects such as delayed blood transfusions.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Statement of witness F in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A medical certificate (Symnasium hospital in the medical school for each household) and a copy of the medical record for E members;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (investigation into replies to the Korean Medical Association), and requests for appraisal and replies;

1. Article 268 of the Criminal Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument does not have any duty of care as stated in the facts charged, and furthermore, even if the defendant is found to have been negligent in violating the duty of explanation, there is no causal relationship between the victim's injury and injury.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, the Defendant 1.