2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the confession of the crime of this case and the fact that the defendant reflects the mistake, the defendant deposited KRW 20 million to recover the victim's damage, and the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime before that time.

However, the crime of this case is a use of government contributions for the performance of research and development tasks for a purpose unrelated to research and development purposes; the method of crime, frequency of crime or damage amount is very heavy; the defendant did not agree with the victim; the defendant was unable to repay additional damage other than deposit money; the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, has a unique area for the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court and the first instance court does not change in the conditions of sentencing and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The favorable circumstances favorable to the defendant, which was recognized earlier, do not constitute a change of special circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the issuance of the judgment below; the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc.; and the defendant's two conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case cannot be deemed to be unduly unfair if taken into account.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the lower court’s ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “each protocol of the statement as to K, L, M,O, P, N, P, P, Q, Q, Q, Q, T, U,V, V, and W” is corrected as “each protocol of the police’s statement as to the column for the summary of evidence of the lower judgment.”