A. The solicitation for recommendation of professors holding concurrent positions as fact-finding does not constitute an illegal solicitation, and the money received by the Defendant from B is not a consideration for recommendation of professors holding concurrent positions, but a consideration for research funds that the Defendant has guaranteed separately.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts can be recognized as having received 7.13 million won in return for the illegal solicitation of recommendation of concurrent professors from B. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

① The Defendant was determined as the principal of the department newly established at the time and was authorized to recommend concurrent professors. However, according to the Defendant’s statement, most of the professors recommended as concurrent professors would be employed as concurrent professors. As such, the Defendant was practically authorized to appoint concurrent professors.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s receipt of money in return for the solicitation to recommend the two professors holding concurrent positions as above constitutes an illegal solicitation contrary to the social norms and the principle of good faith.

(2) The defendant asserts that he receives money in return for guaranteeing research expenses to B.

However, the Defendant did not accurately distinguish the amount of lecture and research expenses to B at the time, and expressed to the effect that the Defendant would guarantee KRW 18 million as an annual salary without accurately distinguishing the amount of lecture and research expenses, and even if ASEAN’s study was conducted, the Defendant’s research conducted by employing B as a research assistant is conducted in the name of F University, and the Defendant’s research was conducted in the name of F University as a professor of F University and employed B as a research assistant for that research.