A. The recovery and joint management of all and part of personnel expenses paid to student research institutes in mistake of facts is not the victim’s intent.

The student research institutes do not arbitrarily collect the personnel expenses received by them, and they do not have much number of times they deposit the full amount of personnel expenses into the accounts under joint management.

Since the Defendant had expressed his intent not to pay all or part of the personnel expenses that he received from the victim from the time of filing an application for research expenses, the Defendant’s deception and fraud of the money therefrom is recognized.

B. Although the facts charged in the instant case constitute a blanket crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and rendering a judgment of acquittal on the part where the statute of limitations has expired as of the date of prosecution, while determining as concurrent crimes as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. Following the facts revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court on the assertion of mistake, that is, the student research institute should be deemed to have belonging to the student research institute once it receives the right to dispose of personnel expenses paid by the student research institute from the victim. Even if it withdraws all or part of the money deposited in the passbook owned by it and deposits it to the student research institute managing the joint management account or pays it to the student research institute managing the joint management account, it shall be deemed to be an act of the student research institute independent of the victim's disposal act, and its disposition is difficult to be the same as the victim's disposition. In light of the above, it is insufficient to view that the submitted evidence alone proves that the Defendant acquired the victim's money by means such as the document in the facts charged

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged is just, and it can be said that there is an error of mistake of facts as argued by the prosecutor.