보조금관리에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the following: (a) the nature of the crime committed by the public prosecutor in this case is inadequate; (b) the consequence is significant; and (c) the degree of participation by the defendant was serious; and (d) the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is excessively uneas
B. In light of the fact that the defendant is against the defendant and the defendant's health condition is not good, the punishment that the court below sentenced against the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. We also examine the judgment and the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.
The crime of this case is a crime which causes damage to the whole citizens, who are taxpayers, ultimately due to the poor financial standing of the State, and is not a bad quality of the crime, and many of the faculty and staff and staff in a planned and systematic manner manipulates the shock rate of students, employment rate, etc., and is not appropriate under the Act on the Acceptance of Crimes. The amount of the government subsidies granted by the J University from the crime of this case exceeds KRW 299 billion, and the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the fact that the degree of participation in the crime is very serious as the president of the J University.
However, there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the National Treasury subsidy of KRW 2.29 billion issued by the J University was deposited and returned by the Korean Council for Education at Junior Colleges. The defendant reflects the defendant's wrong life through five months of confinement, and that the defendant does not repeat again by taking the president's position as the president of the J University. The defendant is an old person and the defendant is in the state of life without prompt treatment, and there is no past or suspended execution or heavier punishment for the defendant.
Considering the various circumstances shown in the records and arguments, the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is somewhat inappropriate.
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.