A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. The Defendant, by deceiving misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, did not err by deceiving 150 million won, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, by deceiving Do.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The judgment of the court below ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment as follows, and the court permitted changes in the indictment and changed the subject of the trial. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

[Revised charges] The Defendant, from around March 1997, served as professor with digital digital department at E University (the same and assistant professor from around March 2015). From around March 2012 to May 2014, the Defendant worked as a regular business of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and took overall charge of G and H-related development.

The victim I Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "victim Co., Ltd.") operated by one Part D, at the request of the defendant, registered the E University Industry-Academic Cooperation Association as a collaborative company and performed the research task, and supplied F with parts of the development work performed by F upon entering into a supply contract with the E.

1. On April 10, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “I wish to get a fluent experienced person from among the developers of the global engineering company,” and that I would be able to receive benefits equivalent to KRW 10 million from the company at which I currently work, so I would be able to repay as I would receive an investment payment from the land developer if I lend KRW 10 million.”

However, the Defendant was willing to directly consume personal debt repayment under the pretext of receiving money from the system developer, and even if he borrowed money from the damaged party, he did not have the intent to use it as notified.