사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The personnel expenses of the student research institute (1) The Defendant did not claim or make a false claim for personnel expenses to the victim D University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (hereinafter “victim”) since the Defendant had the student research institute perform the duty of assistance and research.
(2) The Defendant did not collect money from a student researcher to collect part of the personnel expenses that the student researcher voluntarily received from the victim in order to raise expenses for the student researcher to participate in the overseas academic conference, nor did the Defendant gather money for personal use.
(3) As the Defendant faithfully performed the research tasks of D University and the Korea Research Foundation, the Defendant did not incur damage to the victim.
B) The Defendant was consulted with J, N,O, P, and Q, an expert in order to carry out a research task. In addition, the Defendant did not provide that the Defendant would return advisory fees to the persons who received advisory fees from the victim, and the experts who received advisory fees did not voluntarily return advisory fees to the Defendant with the knowledge that the Defendant’s research environment is difficult, and there was no intention to acquire the advisory fees by fraud on expert advisory fees. C) The meeting expenses were used as meal expenses or tea with the researchers, and the Defendant did not use them individually regardless of the research activities.
2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. (b) Although the Defendant did not receive expert advice from AD or AE, the Defendant entices the victim by claiming expert advisory fees, and even if the Defendant did not explicitly state that he would return advisory fees remitted to AD or AE, it shall be deemed that AD or AE knew that he would receive advisory fees more than ordinary advisory fees, and therefore, AD or AE would have known that it would have received advisory fees.