A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. Of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below in the erroneous determination of facts, the fact that the defendant did not intend to pay personnel expenses to the Institute is a foundation for industry-academic cooperation (hereinafter “industry-academic cooperation foundation”) for the D

As to the portion “ falsely claimed” portion, as long as the researchers participated in the actual research task, the industry-academic cooperation foundation terminated the legal relationship on the payment of personnel expenses between the industry-academic cooperation foundation and the person in charge of research by paying personnel expenses to the researchers upon the application of the Defendant, who is a person in charge of research. The legal relationship between the Defendant and the researcher on how to use personnel expenses between the Defendant and the researcher is merely a legal relationship between the Defendant and the researcher, which may not affect the legal relationship with the industry-academic cooperation foundation. In addition, the Defendant and the researcher agreed not

Even if an industry-academic cooperation foundation cannot be the ground for refusing payment, and thus a deception cannot be established, it is erroneous for the lower court to have convicted all of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts.

B. Not on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Even if the sentence of the court below (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) sentenced to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining on the grounds of appeal as to the above grounds of appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with respect to partial changes in the facts charged of this case, and this court permitted such changes, and thus, the subject of judgment was changed. Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which is based on the initial indictment, was no longer maintained.

B. However, the defendant asserts a mistake of facts against the judgment of the court below which found guilty prior to the alteration.