The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the charge of this case on the ground that there is a proximate causal relation between the defendant's violation of the duty to explain and not specifically explain the contents of post-treatment, post-operation treatment before the instant surgery and the injury suffered by the victim. On the other hand, the defendant did not confirm whether there was a drug or drug at the time of the surgery, and whether there was a sensitive response to the drug or drug, etc. at the time of the surgery, and there was a proximate causal relation between such occupational negligence and the injury suffered by the victim after the surgery of this case.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In order for a physician to have been negligent in a medical accident, the doctor may anticipate and avoid the occurrence of the outcome, and it shall be recognized that the doctor was not foreseeable or avoided even though he/she was able to do so. In determining the existence of negligence, the general level of care of the ordinary person engaged in the same work and occupation shall be the standard, and the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, and the specificity of the medical practice shall

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s conviction should be determined based on the evidence of probative value, which leads to the existence of a reasonable doubt as to the facts charged in a criminal trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3292, Jan. 10, 2003; 2001Do3292, Jan. 10, 2003).