2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, where the Defendant, a university professor, filed an application for research expenses with the victim D University, and obtained the registration of the faculty student who did not actually conduct research as a researcher and obtained the registration of the faculty student as a researcher, and the amount of damage was a large and false number of faculty students registered, and there was no agreement with the victims.

On the other hand, it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant reflects the crime of this case, the primary offender, and the research funds acquired by deceit are not privately appropriated, and most of the research funds are used as expenses for laboratory personnel, operating expenses, and expenses for purchasing equipment necessary for research, etc.

In addition, in full view of the arguments and records of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been appropriately determined by taking into account the above normal relationship and the grounds for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor, and there are no special circumstances to the extent that the sentencing is changed ex post facto, so the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.