2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the following, although the Defendant is in the position of requiring high level of morality and integrity as a professor of the National University, the Defendant acquired the amount of personnel expenses paid to the Institute by arbitrarily using it for other purposes, and the amount of fraud is reasonable in light of the period of the crime and frequency of the crime, etc., and it is recognized that the Defendant violated his own mistake with no history of the crime, and the Defendant’s circumstances, such as the circumstance that the Defendant would have caused the crime of this case’s first instance court-oriented trials, such as return of the Defendant’s funds to the Institute of Audit and Inspection, etc., and the Defendant’s remaining for the aforementioned purpose of the Defendant’s 1.

3. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.