1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is that, according to the productization right license agreement entered into between F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and the victim, F constitutes the royalty income to be reported to the victim in order to settle the royalty to be paid by F to the victim pursuant to the productization license agreement entered into between the Defendant and the victim as stated in the “amount omitted in the report” on the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “amount omitted in the report of this case”), the Defendant omitted or reduced it, thereby inducing the victim to exercise the royalty claim equivalent to 40% of the amount omitted in the report of this case by deceiving the victim.

The lower court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the entire omitted amount of the report in the instant case constituted the royalty income to be reported and settled by the victim under the instant master agreement based on the evidence adopted by the lower court.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, F cannot enter into a re-permission agreement with a third party without the victim's approval (Article 3); F is a evidence of the permission for commercialization, and F is a document of the permission for commercialization and attaching the evidentiary document to the permitted product. In this case, F is prohibited from attaching the delivered evidentiary document other than the permitted product or transferring it to a third party (Article 5); F is, in principle, at the time of delivery of the evidentiary document to the victim.