2. The Defendants acquired part of the public research funds to support and foster academic activities, and used the public funds to be strictly managed, and the nature of the offense is heavy.

I would like to say.

However, in light of the motive and background leading up to each of the crimes of this case, the means and method of the crimes, the circumstances before and after the crimes, the age of the defendants, sexual behavior, environment, occupation, family relationship, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is too unafford and it cannot be deemed unfair in light of the following circumstances: (a) most of the research funds acquired by the defendants could be used as part of actual research rather than private use; (b) Defendant B returned the research funds used for personal use to the H University Industry-Academic Cooperation Group; and (c) Defendant B was the primary offender; and (d) Defendant A and C did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine; and (e) other circumstances, such as the motive and circumstance leading up to the crimes of this case, the means and method of the crimes, the means and method of the crimes, the circumstances leading to the crimes

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.