Jie Shao flew into Australia 24 hours before performing a banned breast augmentation procedure on the operator of a beauty clinic, who did not survive.
More than six years on from the August 2017 death, a NSW District Court jury is considering Shao's fate.
Central to their deliberations, which began on Wednesday, will be whether Shao would have realised it was dangerous to perform the procedure in an under-equipped, unlicensed clinic she did not manage and had never worked at.
Shao's trial began in February and has pored over what she did - and did not do - before and after 35-year-old Jean Huang lost consciousness at the Medi Beauty Clinic she operated at Chippendale, in inner-city Sydney.
Ms Huang died in hospital after the procedure, which was not approved in Australia at the time and involved hyaluronic acid being injected into her breasts as filler.
Judge Timothy Gartelmann reminded the jury Shao was accused of manslaughter for administering local anaesthetic lidocaine above a safe dose.
"Your focus must remain on that act and the circumstances that existed at that time," he said, summarising the prosecution and defence arguments before the jury retired to consider its verdict.
Shao's lawyers acknowledged Ms Huang was mistakenly given too much lidocaine but argued the jury would not be satisfied her actions were so dangerous or fell so far below reasonable standards of care that they should warrant criminal punishment.
They should also not accept evidence from prosecution witnesses who implicated Shao, her defence said, and should instead believe she only performed the breast augmentation procedure when Ms Huang asked her rather than a man to do it.
That man left the country after Ms Huang died and has not returned, while Shao stayed and is awaiting a jury verdict.
Key prosecution witnesses held a meeting to get their stories straight before talking to police and were motivated to lie to protect a financial interest in the clinic, using Shao as a convenient patsy, the defence argued.
Shao did not manage the clinic, had never worked there and had been in Sydney for 24 hours before the procedure, the court heard.
She was not responsible for the clinic's equipment, nor was she in charge of hiring staff or checking that they were qualified, her lawyers said.
The clinic clearly did not comply with regulations and was simply a profit-making enterprise, but Shao would not have realised this or the dangers it presented at the time, the defence argued.
But prosecutors said Shao held herself out as a doctor in messages to Ms Huang and had been arranged to perform the procedure, rather than voluntarily stepping in at the last minute.
She was not registered as a medical practitioner in Australia or China, where she studied and interned at hospitals.
Shao tried to calm Ms Huang down and continued the procedure after she changed her mind, did not check the prepared anaesthetic dose before administering it and did not recognise clear signs of lidocaine toxicity before the woman lost consciousness.
