2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has the unique area of the first instance court as to sentencing judgment, and where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment against the Defendant in favor of the Defendant in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime: (b) the Defendant, despite the status of professor that requires high morality and integrity; (c) he/she acquired approximately KRW 37,50,00 in total by means of falsely claiming travel expenses and personnel expenses of researchers while carrying out research projects requested by an external institution despite the status of professor that requires high level of morality and integrity; (d) the act of defraudation occurred repeatedly over a long period; and (e) the amount of fraud was not much much; and (e) the act of pling or pling the intent of many researchers who research his/her best in his/her field is deemed difficult to eradicate the official punishment on the ground that it is a practice.

The lower court appears to have determined a sentence by fully taking into account the grounds for sentencing with respect to the Defendant, and there is no new circumstance or special change that can be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the defendant as shown in the argument of this case, and the motive and method of the crime of this case.