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.

Defendant

misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the guilty part in the original trial) the defendant is entitled to the first appeal in the appellate brief.

(a).

Paragraphs 2 and 2

(a)Paragraph (3);

(b) paragraphs (2) and 3-b;

Appellanting misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant asserted that the detailed grounds for appeal will be finally disclosed through a supplementary statement of the grounds for appeal in addition to the Defendant. After the first trial of the party, the Defendant is at the time of original trial.

(a).

“Withdrawal of the part concerning the claim”, and the defense counsel’s written opinion (which appears to be a supplement to the grounds of appeal) submitted to the trial court on March 20, 2014, also make the same assertion. Therefore, the part that the Defendant argues for misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in the original trial is deemed to be 2.

(a)Paragraph (3);

(b) paragraphs (2) and 3-b);

Since it is a clause, it is examined.

Section 2- at the time of the original adjudication

A. (3) The criminal facts of paragraph (3) (the embezzlement of 26,019,174 won based on false appropriation of personnel expenses, etc. for full-time teachers among occupational embezzlement) Y, W, and X are the persons who are actually appointed as full-time professors of a school juristic person E-university (hereinafter “E”) and do not take lectures due to the abolition of his/her lectures due to his/her short of students. Thus, it cannot be deemed that he/she paid a total of 26,019,174 won as wages (the remaining amount after deducting taxes, etc. from annual salary) for the said teacher, such as criminal facts.

In particular, Y in the case of Y, it was decided to give a lecture after studying abroad while maintaining the teaching profession, but it was not returned to the study, and only a resignation letter was received in the first semester of 2009.

Even if a teacher who is falsely registered in W, X, and E is a false teacher, the Defendant paid benefits to X, W, and Y inevitably with the intention to meet the faculty ratio for E, a truster, at the time, so the Defendant cannot recognize the Defendant’s intention of unlawful acquisition.

Nevertheless, this part is guilty.