The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) victim F’s injury is not related to the defendant’s violation of the duty of explanation, and the defendant did not have breached his duty of care with respect to the alcohol of this case. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is operating the “E Council member” in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and since around February 17:30, 2012, the Defendant performed a niversatory test on both sides against the victim, he/she has a duty of care to specifically explain the content of the niversary and post-operation treatment, etc. that may occur to the victim before performing the surgery as a doctor before performing the surgery, and to confirm whether there is symptoms of the live drugs, etc.

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 transfusion during the operation, and caused side effects such as delayed blood transfusion, and thereby suffered injury of which the number of days of treatment cannot be known.

3. Determination

A. In order to impose criminal liability on a physician due to negligence in the course of performing medical practice without a doctor’s violation of the duty to explain and in cases where a result of bodily injury has occurred to a patient, a doctor must have a substantial causal relationship between a doctor’s breach of the duty to explain and the patient’s injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do104, Apr. 14, 201). In addition, there is negligence on a doctor in a medical accident

For this purpose, it is recognized that the doctor could have predicted and avoided the occurrence of the outcome, and that it was not foreseeable or avoided even though it was possible to do so, and when determining the existence of negligence, the degree of the general common person who is engaged in the same work and occupational category.